Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

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

Last monarch, Edward or George?

This seems a good place to come for advice about Edward VIII as last monarch[1]: Given the reasoning at the Talk page for Monarchy_of_Ireland is there good learning and sources for or against letting George VI be taken from the list of the last of the monarchs of the Irish Free State? --Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically George 5, Edward 8 and George 6 were indeed Monarch of the Irish Free State. But as far as I know, their influence on the Irish Governement was plain zero. In my opinion, it might be a good idea to change the heading "Monarchs of the Irish Free State" to "Pro Forma Monarchs of the Irish Free State". The Banner _talk 13:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Change of heading seems a good idea. Perhaps it should be "Treaty Monarchs". The arrangement, whatever it was at any point in time, existed in practice and by mutual consent witnessed by formal treaty and otherwise between the parties representing the sovereignty of the IFS and the UK, and the arrangement was in the interest of both parties, both internally for home affairs and externally for foreign affairs. Is there anything sourceable to support George VI as "technically...Monarch of the Irish Free State"? Qexigator (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The article on Domhnall Ua Buachalla is quite good on this aspect. Unfortunately, it offers no citations. Given the nature of the instructions however, it's unlikely that de Valera would have committed them to writing. While they're probably true, they're proably unproveable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Domhnall Ua Buachalla mentioned by Laurel Lodged gives some interesting detail which backs up Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. The main contributors to both articles seem to be well-versed in the topic. "Treaty Monarchs" would be consistent with the following extracts from the latter:

..."The exact constitutional status of the state during this period has been a matter of scholarly and political dispute. ....one practical implication of explicitly declaring the state to be a republic in 1949 was that it automatically terminated the state's membership of the then British Commonwealth, in accordance with the rules in operation at the time. ....from 1936 until 1949 the role of the King in the Irish state was invisible to most Irish people. The monarch never visited the state during that period and, due to the abolition of the office of Governor-General, had no official representative there. The president, on the other hand, played a key role in important public ceremonies. Due to his role in foreign relations, however, almost every state with which the state had diplomatic relations concluded that it was the King who was head of state.... in December 1948...the Republic of Ireland Bill he [the Taoiseach John A. Costello] was introducing would make the President of Ireland the Irish head of state, the man who "ought to have been" but wasn't ....The King's title during this period was never simply "King of Ireland". "

I am proposing to make the change of heading to Treaty Monarchs, in Monarchy of Ireland, but comment from others would be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

--but now see Talk:Monarchy of Ireland[[2]] Qexigator (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

--and now see changes at Monarchy of Ireland, Monarchs of the Itish Free State. Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Crown in Ireland Act 1542 was repealed in 2007, allowing for any sort of head of state between 1922 and 2007.86.42.199.13 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If Irish statute sources are to be believed the repeal was in 1962,[3] so its inclusion in the 2007 schedule is anomalous, and certainly was not explained at the BBC source. Qexigator (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1937 didn't specify that the state was a republic, just that there was a self-governing state run by those elected by the Irish people. So the 1948 Act was needed. There's a logic in "Treaty Monarchs" but that's like saying "I don't like reading that now so let's redefine it". So on paper it was George 6.86.42.221.77 (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

GAA-related edits

Mabuska has made what looks like close to 200 edits on GAA-related pages, changing "Derry" to "Derry GAA", starting with a page move that, as far as I can see, was never discussed. Many of these edits change the [[List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry]] link to the non-existent [[List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA]]. Many have the edit summary "amending to avoid IMoS violation". IMoS violation? Where is that coming from? I seem to recall that somebody proposed a topic ban on another user for pulling a similar stunt not so long ago. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

See 6 headings higher for a discussion about it, sanctioning the actions by doing nothing. The Banner _talk 20:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sanctioning the action of RA in reverting the edits of the other user, you mean? Scolaire (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, the editwar is already there. To put it quite unpolite: dom gelul (you can look that up in Google Translate) The Banner _talk 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you. I'm not studying to be unpolite. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As you can expect, I support the moves because it clarifies a potential question about what county you are talking about. GAA counties are not always identical to government counties. And especially in Northern-Ireland, that can lead to explosive situations. Adding GAA to the county name, conform the actual names of the counties, defuses that effect. The Banner _talk 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support the moves per Banner rationale. Also, what can be meant by "non-existent" Derry GAA? The article Derry GAA states "The Derry County Board of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) (Irish: Cummann Lúthchleas Gael Coiste Contae Dhoire) or Derry GAA is one of the 32 county boards of the GAA in Ireland". So the GAA itslef does not use "Derry" on a standalone basis. It's only shorthand or vernacular expressions that might contract the name. It is also the case that there is a club within the Derry GAA county board that draws muchof its support from County Antrim. So the area under the administration of the Derry County Board is not and was not not co-extensive with the geographic area of County Londonderry. It is correct therefore to disambiguate the two entities and their differing spheres of operation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It means the link to the non-existent "#Derry GAA" section of List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland. That's why I showed the wiki code. The edits turn a good link into a bad one. Nothing more than that. Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RM Talk:London_GAA_Intermediate_Football_Championship that's relevant to this discussion Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouble-stirring Scolaire with misleading comments? I only amended Derry GAA club articles with the addition of "GAA" after Brocach had inserted into them all most the "#Derry" part after his campaign to have "Country Derry" used dismissed by the community. Is there 200 such club articles relating to the Derry GAA? The link was not a bad one as I had similarily changed the actual article section-links so that it wasn't a broken link. Brocah then reverted all of them all based on the excuse that stating "Derry GAA" for clarification wasn't neccesary despite the potential IMoS issue.

Care to apologise for your misleading comments when all I did was try to sort out a potential IMoS problem which Brocach was inserting into articles after his previous campaigns had failed??? No mention of his actions? Nothing strange there. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And what potential IMoS violation? Are you blind? Whilst Brocach's insertion into the IMoS makes sense in the text of articles, i don't agree that it should apply to article links, especially when he has been on a campaign of trying to get the implication of "County Derry" through the back-door for the past 3 months or more. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The template name move was hardly controversial either as at present after Brocach's typical reverting, it is an IMoS violation. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Must also point out Scolaire that it didn't start with a page move. Anyone who looks at my contributions will clearly see the page move occurred in the middle of my GAA edits. Oh the misleading. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I also count around 98 edits not 200. Stirring the pot? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You wait a fortnight for a post from Mabuska and then six come along together! Bottom line: no, I don't care to apologise for anything. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Representative peer FAR

I have nominated Representative peer 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Irish Provinces

There is a particular editor with certain political leanings that has recently begun uneccessarily adding a reference next to the Irish names of the 4 provinces of Ireland, along with a foonote. It is completely unneccessary and unwarranted especially since the editor in question IMO is implying that the names of the provinces require citations? Maybe I am just over-reacting, anyway I did not undo the edits as I have no desire to be dragged into an edit war with this editor. ÓCorcráin (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what you mean. Could you provide a link? — Jon C.^ॐ 09:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would help if you could provide a link to the articles affected, and preferably a diff to the edits you are referring to. We need to be able to find these articles/edits If we're going to help with them. Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Ulster [4]

States it is neccessary for a source for Irish name, nothing about Ulster Scots though.

2. Munster [5]

3. Leinster [6]

4. Connacht [7]

This is strange behaviour along with these edits, what exactly is the point of these? But as I said, I might be just overreacting. ÓCorcráin (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What I see is an edit from somebody who give more wait to the ISO Newsletter than you should expect or (in my opinion) is warranted. Looks superfluous to me but no reason for headaches. The Banner talk 11:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've made a couple of aesthetic changes to the infobox section in question seeing as it didn't even mention what language the other names were. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Londonderry/Derry IMoS violations in regards to Derry GAA articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I said I would to Brocach the last day I was active, I have brought this issue to a board of peers, though Scolaire sort of beat me to it in a way.

Having failed with trying to have the County Londonderry categories deleted and replaced with County Derry ones for GAA articles amongst other back-door attempts to bypass IMoS, Brocach recently went about amending see also links for almost all Derry GAA club articles. Whilst he was correct to fix the link, i.e. "List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs#Derry" to "List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry" [8], [9], he also added the #Derry to other articles for example: [10] and [11].

Due to the potential IMoS violation ([12] - using the Lissan GAC article as the general example) I amended the links further by adding "GAA" after Derry to give: "List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry GAA". For this hash link to work I also modified the actual article by removing the pipe-link for all the County GAA's so that it would state "Derry GAA" etc. Brocach reverted all changes, citing no need for the article to state GAA after each county board as "GAA county" is stated at the top of the article. As well citing that there is no need for it as IMoS backs it. Note that IMoS only states "usually be abbreviated to", not that it must be:

Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the entity; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry, and Derry GAA (which will usually be abbreviated to Derry).

Secondly I noticed the following IMoS violating template: Template:Derry clubs. I moved the article to Template:Derry GAA clubs. I then amended all attached articles to match. Brocach reverted all of these changes too with no apparent reason given.

Proposals

Seeing as the whole situation is a mess of IMoS violation or potential IMoS violation I propose the following:

1. Move Template:Derry clubs to Template:Derry GAA clubs
2. Unpipe-link all county board section links in List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland so that they say Derry GAA not Derry etc. especially seeing as the name of it according to Derry GAA is "The Derry County Board of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) (Irish: Cummann Lúthchleas Gael Coiste Contae Dhoire) or Derry GAA is one of the 32 county boards of the GAA in Ireland" - not "Derry" on it own.
3. Amend related articles so that they state "List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA" etc. - requires above proposal to be implemented to work
4. A declaration in IMoS that "(which will usually be abbreviated to Derry)" should apply only in an in-text context within GAA related articles after it is used fully in it's first instance. This means stating "Derry GAA" not "Derry" in links/templates/categories.

In my view these are a very reasonable set of proposals to clarify what is actually being referred to and to fix the IMoS violations and potential violations. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Poll

• Support - Obviously I support my proposals, but just making it crystal. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - this silly moving around should stop as soon as possible and at all levels, including the moves proposed at Talk:London GAA Intermediate Football Championship#Requested move and Talk:Leinster GAA Senior Football Championship#Move? (who are clearly controversial, although mr. B. fails to see that.) The Banner talk 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. All county board section links in List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland are not links to Derry GAA. This proposal is a transparent attempt to push a POV with regard to one county under the guise of generally "fixing" GAA articles that do not need to be fixed. Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal 2: Firstly because the proposal is badly worded. Since the proposal is to unpipe-link all county board section links, it should say "...so that they say X GAA not X" to make clear that all 32 counties will be equally affected, rather than specifying a single county (Derry), which only causes confusion. Secondly because making such changes for all 32 counties just to address a disagreement between editors over a single county (Derry) is bad policy IMO. Oppose proposal 3 for essentially the same reasons, plus the fact that List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland would have to have section headings of "Galway GAA", "Leitrim GAA" etc. which are redundant and pointless in a list of GAA clubs. Oppose proposal 4 because it involves adding complexity and ambiguity to IMOS. Common sense should dictate when "Derry" or "Derry GAA" is used. IMOS is not a blunt instrument to force one format or another to be used. Support proposal 1, provided all other templates in that category are also renamed. It is one instance of where "GAA clubs" actually provides clarity. Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — Jon C.^ॐ 10:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The proposal is a model of clarity and fairness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. (This discussion should in any case be taking place at at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic games.) There is absolutely no violation of the IMoS: in fact the IMoS provides that "Derry GAA" will usually be abbreviated to "Derry". The name of any GAA county's football team, for example, is just the county name, e.g. "Derry" or "Tipperary". Mabuska complains above that I reverted dozens of changes he made without discussion - well, if one makes changes without discussion, and they are reverted, one is expected to open a discussion on the talk page. Did he do that? No. His reverted template change would have left Derry as the only GAA county template with the "GAA" after the name of the county - I prefer consistency. That template has a talk page. Did he take the matter there? Of course not.

So, having had controversial edits reverted, and having failed to utilise the talk pages, he comes here - avoiding the Gaelic Games page - to seek support to make hundreds of edits to GAA articles in order to address a supposed IMoS problem that doesn't exist.

Incidentally, Mabuska claimed weeks ago on my talk page, and does so here again, that it was I who inserted "usually abbreviated to Derry". I didn't, but I completely agree with it, both as a statement of fact and as an IMoS guideline. Brocach (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, you reverted moves before a discussion (accidentally going the other way than your wishes) was ended. So why complain about non-discussion when you plain ignore an ongoing-discussion? The Banner talk 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting controversial moves and opening a discussion is normal per WP:BRD. You should look it up. Brocach (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

But reverting a move while the discussion is still running and is turning another way is not according to WP:BRD. No matter how hard you scream WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Banner talk 15:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 2,3,4. I don't really care where the template sits . The rest appear to be a solution in search of a problem Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Before proceeding further, can you please specify which guideline in IMOS is being violated or potentially violated, and how? Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The word "usually" is an accident waiting to happen. "Usually" has no place in a manual; it either is or it is not. Toleave it in place is a licence for chaos. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

From Glenullin GAC: "The club is a member of the Derry GAA." It would be inappropriate to abbreviate this to "Derry". Usually, however, it is both appropriate and proper to abbreviate it (see my comment here here, a less smart-ass response). If you can phrase that in a way that is not "a licence for chaos", please do. Scolaire (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, can anybody specify which guideline in IMOS is being violated or potentially violated, and how? Scolaire (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Must we really play game of "I'm a silly bugger"? How tiresome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I have to remind you of WP:CIVIL? Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The proposal begins "Seeing as the whole situation is a mess of IMoS violation or potential IMoS violation". What does this mean? It's a simple question. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Laurel's comment. Acting dumb in a clear attempt at stone-walling the issue along with failing to provide an actual proper reason for objecting to the proposals. How?...

1. "All county board section links in List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland are not links to Derry GAA." - what does "etc." means? Do likewise for the rest of the links, i.e. remove the pipe-link - not change all to "Derry GAA".
2. The proposals obviously focuses on one county - what is the title of this thread? The suggestion to remove the pipe-link for the rest of the links in that one article is for the sake of article consistency if we did remove the pipe in use on the Derry GAA link.
3. Accusations of POV pushing to try to deride the proposal can be easily turned around as your opposition can be regarded as backing back-door attempts to bypass IMoS. Also note how there is no objection in the proposal to using "Derry" in the text of a GAA article after "Derry GAA" has been used in the first instance. That's really anti-Derry POV pushing isn't it?
4. An editor as experienced as you knows the IMoS and how it is being violated. Londonderry for the county and Derry for the city. The "usually abbreviated to" for Derry GAA is a recent addition by Brocach reworded by yourself with the obvious intent to use "Derry" on it's own when referring to the county. I removed it stating it wasn't discussed, you put it back in stating let's discuss it now. We never had a proper discussion on it so as far as I am concerned it has no real authority of community backing. At the start I could agree to the sense of it, I no longer do seeing as it is clearly being used out of the context it was apparently for (before your rewording of it): when used in the text of a GAA article after the full term is already fully used in it's first instance. It makes no sense whatsoever in regards to links or templates and in that case it can be easily classified as IMoS violating and so that line needs clarified hence my proposal to add such clarification to it.

Simple? Or are you going to continue playing the "I don't know, I don't see the problem" card? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note the comment of Scolaire's that he linked to above [13] - shows the lack of reason from Scolaire in regards to this issue. It is clear that Laurel proposed using the full title of "Derry GAA" instead of Derry or County Derry etc. with Scolaire convoluting Laurel's comment to mean stating "Derry GAA (or more formally the "Derry GAA County Board")" instead etc. which they then used as their reason to oppose Laurel's suggestion. And who is POV pushing? As such I will reserve any future responses to comments that have some form of reason. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remain civil. I am neither dumb nor playing dumb. I am not playing card games or any other games. I am not attempting to stonewall any issue; I merely asked a civil question in the interests of helping the discussion along. The comment about POV-pushing was ill-advised, and I have withdrawn it. I hope you feel my detailed reasons for opposing three of the four proposals are clearer. However, my basic question is the same, and I feel that it remains unanswered: how can following IMOS guidelines be a violation of IMOS? If IMOS ackowledges that there are exceptions to the rule, and specifies that "Derry GAA", abbreviated to "Derry" is one of those exceptions (and I added that bit after a lengthy discussion, with no objections at the time), then how can anybody violate IMOS by following that guideline? Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's spell it out then; the IMOS is so vague as to be unuseable. The vagueness was only recently put in without adequate discussion. It should never have been allowed. It remained because others were persuaded that the ambiguity in it would not be abused. Certaineditors have abused that trust. The proposed set (and by the way it's a set, not a preferendum) remedies the problem. It is also consistent with the Jan 3 decision at WP:CFD on Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers. That decision reflects what reasonable, neutral people think about such issues. To them, the issues involved are really rather trivial. If it was up to them, the proposal would pass. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think that adding extra layers of complexity to a "vague" guideline will make it less vague. All it will do is multiply the possible interpretations that people can edit-war over. You are also being inconsistent. You said that 'the word "usually" is an accident waiting to happen; "usually" has no place in a manual", but you are in favour of keeping the word and adding more accidents-in-waiting to it! And, by the way, I don't know what you have spelled out but you still haven't answered my simple question:

What in IMOS is being violated and how? If the answer is so obvious, why on earth can you not say it straight? Scolaire (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it would be just too embarrassing to admit that no IMoS guideline is violated, and that this whole discussion is therefore premised on a mistake. Brocach (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

True, after you have changed the Manual of Style according to your wishes and made it as vague and ambiguous as possible. It is an old trick: change the rules and then claim that you did not break the new rules (as you would have done under the old ones). The Banner talk 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

And so concludes Match 1 of "I'm a silly bugger". Tune in next week folks for the round we like to call "Let me spell it out ffor you again". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@Scolaire - no-one else seemed to misunderstand the "badly worded" proposal so far. @Brocach - actually the IMoS discussion page is where this should of been put, not here or at the GAA project page. Obviously you would agree to the problem you added into the IMoS - made worse by Scolaire rewording it to make it more vague. Scolaire can go on about what is being violated in IMoS when their editing of your addition created his vindication for stating "what's wrong?" whilst also creating the vagueness and lack of clarity in it that is at present being abused to vindicate the usage of "Derry" in a non-context manner giving the impression that it represents the name of the county rather than simply a GAA county board.

There is obviously no consensus for Brocach's addition and Scolaire's rewording of it seeing as so far 4 out of 6 editors back change (yes too small a sample for even a rough consensus) - so a simpler solution might be to propose removing it altogether - but clarity would be a better way to move forward, hence proposal 4.

1. Counter-proposal - I could drop proposal 2 and 3 and replace them with a proposal for the removal of the "#Derry" part of the link, which was only added into most by Brocach recently once the "County Derry" categories he created had got deleted by the bot after a CfD.
2. Counter-proposal 2 - Instead of counter-proposal 1, we could drop proposal 2 and 3 and pipe-link [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry]] to [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Derry GAA clubs]] instead. This puts it into a proper context and avoids the obvious (and quite purposeful in light of Brocach's recent actions) hint that it is referring to "County Derry" instead of "Derry GAA". This means no pipe-links in that article need to be removed and leaves no chance of alleged broken links and requires little effort by a single editor to implement. This counter-proposal would sort Scolaire's stated concerns with proposals 2 and 3.

Oh yes Scolaire, it is generally accepted that if you edit a comment you've already made and have already had responses to, that you don't edit it afterwards but make a new comment after it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, Mabuska. It is a long-established practice to strike through a comment if somebody has found it problematic, and make a new comment after the strike-through. Try to leave out the ad hominem, will you? Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not ad hominem. There is no problem with strikes, though extra info you should add in a new comment directly after it. Otherwise it can be considered deceptive seeing as it still had the old time-stamp. Though I will concede it has no importance and makes little difference to this topic.

Care to voice your opinion on the rest of my previous comment which is quite relevant to this discussion? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just stupid! I am replying on your user talk page. And no, I don't care to voice my opinion on this discussion, which has become farcical. Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've created a sub-section just after "Poll" for a counter-proposal poll. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to the end, which is where new discussion belongs. Scolaire (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Consistency

Laurel Lodged I'd have much greater sympathy if you where consistent in your position and ensured consistency after your proposals. Your move of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers I supported but now we have one category out of 100's with an odd name, do you plan to clean up Category:Gaelic games players by sport ?

You've moved some county competition articles but not all , why?

Why is Derry being singled out ? Will a consensus here be used to do that same for Dublin GAA next week?

Why have you bi-passed WP:GAA ? Gnevin (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please raise the issue at Laurel's talk-page as it isn't entirely related to this issue I've raised? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1 I've not been idle. The work has commenced at WP:CFD - see Hurlers by GAA county. All supporters welcome.

2 My offer at Tiperary GAA Hurlers was conditional on getting support. That support has been conspicuous by its absence. Instead of carping, help with the heavy lifting.

3 I was edit blocked for 48 hours in defence of Tipperary GAA hurlers. For those that supported, you have a fresh opportunity to defend all that it entails at the WP:ANI case listed below.

4 My next plan of campaign is for the NI hurler categories. After that, I'll commence the camogie cats. All assistance gratefully received. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why just NI hurlers? You need to move these a whole . Propose a multi cat move instead on 1 in isolation but fair enough you're moving the stuff which is good . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Counter-proposals

As some editors have an issue with proposals 2 and 3, I will suggest alternatives that may meet those concerns:

1. Counter-proposal - I could drop proposal 2 and 3 and replace them with a proposal for the removal of the "#Derry" part of the link, which was only added into most by Brocach recently once the "County Derry" categories he created had got deleted by the bot after a CfD.
2. Counter-proposal 2 - Instead of counter-proposal 1, we could drop proposal 2 and 3 and pipe-link [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry]] to [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Derry GAA clubs]] instead. This puts it into a proper context and avoids the obvious (and quite purposeful in light of Brocach's recent actions) hint that it is referring to "County Derry" instead of "Derry GAA". This means no pipe-links in that article need to be removed and leaves no chance of alleged broken links and requires little effort by a single editor to implement.

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: It gets rather confusing when someone offers four proposals, all unnecessary, to address a non-existent violation of IMoS; refuses to identify what part of IMoS is being violated; then makes a "counter-proposal" to his own four proposals, consisting of two equally uncalled for changes. Brocach (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved Brocach's comment from the "Proposal" section to here as this is where the voting should be done. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Also Brocach nowhere did I say I was providing counter-proposals to all four proposals - only for proposals 2 and 3. So please learn to fully read editors comments before responding. Also you are the only editor to disagree with proposal 1 so it can be considered possibly a non-issue, however as three other editors agree with me on the rest shows that there is an issue with the others. Being stubborn for the sake of it doesn't work on Wikipedia as compromise and/or counter-proposals are needed to move things on. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved the whole lot to here as new proposals should be made at the bottom, not somewhere in the middle. Scolaire (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per Brocach. IMOS cannot violate IMOS, therefore the original proposals were pointless, and modifying them is equally pointless. Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• FYI You may wish to consider the proposal for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged here. Brocach (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And off course the proposal for a topic ban against mr. Brocach in the same discussion. The Banner talk 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I've only really been involved with Brocach not Laurel Lodged in regards to the issues so I have only voiced my opinion in the one I have knowledge of. Otherwise these notifications should not be put here as they don't belong here. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to Scolaire's continued insistence the IMoS is actually being violated and willfully so: the IMoS states that Derry GAA will be usually abbreviated to [[Derry GAA|Derry]] - how is this met with Brocach's hash article links? Just to remind everyone this is what they are using: List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry - how does this meet the IMoS? How does this avoid confusing the GAA county for the city or the county of Londonderry? It doesn't. Opposing the addition of "GAA" to the end of the link which is clearly violating IMoS shows that the opposition from Brocach and Scolaire has more to do with POV pushing than anything else.

Scolaire can ignore the obvious fact that several editors agree with my proposals, which clearly shows that there is a problem with what is currently in the IMoS despite what they might try to claim. Maybe they don't want to admit their rewording has got it wrong, maybe they want to ensure the ambiguity remains so that it can be abused, who knows. The counter-proposals I suggested met Scolaire's secondary reasons for objecting (seeing as his original reason was a blunt oppose), and as I suspected he would, he opposed them too. Going by his recent crack-up on my talk page where he decided to totally over-react to a simple comment on etiquette, they have decided to have no further part in this discussion! As was clear to me from the start, Scolaire's opposition is based on a desire to ensure this problem remains in the IMoS regardless of what is proposed.

Like it or not Scolaire, I have identified a problem that arose out of your tinkering with the IMoS and 3 other editors agree with me - so the problem is real. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am really trying to understand you, Mabuska, as someone who has made constructive edits on GAA matters, but I still see no violation. List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry uses "[[Derry GAA|Derry]]" as an abbreviation for Derry GAA which as the IMoS reasonably notes, is usually abbreviated to [[Derry GAA|Derry]]. You must have noticed that in normal usage, certainly in any media reference to GAA matters, it is absolutely the case that "Derry" is almost always used to refer Derry GAA. In the List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland, every one of the 32 counties is listed simply by the name of the GAA county in question, and nothing would be added to the usefulness of the list by adding 32 GAAs, and less by adding one "GAA" in the sole case of Derry, presumably to please those who don't like the fact that in the GAA that's how the team, the County Board, and the area administered by the county board are all known. Anyone using a list of Gaelic games club in Ireland is likely to know that, in a list grouped in 32 county sets, the set headed [[Derry GAA|Derry]]) refers not to the city of Derry, nor to the defunct administrative county of Londonderry, but to the GAA county of Derry which has existed for well over a century and has never been called anything else. I can't see the slightest possibility of confusion, and now that you have "explained" the alleged IMoS violation it is clearer than ever that there hasn't been one. Brocach (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What he said.

And please stop with the ad hominem. It is against WP:CIVIL and it's going to result in a report next time. Scolaire (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pot-and-kettle Scolaire - a report would only boomerang considering your actions on this matter. Also it would help matters if you'd actually answer the points and questions I've made. Continually ignoring them only makes my points that you call ad hominem even more valid. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that an attempt to move this towards consensus has begun here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if this discussion which is related but not linked to LL and Brocach's GAA tit-for-tats is to be closed, then the only proposal that seems to have overwhelming support (proposal 1) should be implemented seeing as only Brocach opposed it. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Implemented for all the templates at the same time? I would not support one user changing one template and leaving somebody else to do the rest. Scolaire (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion I mentioned above has now closed and the results can be seen here. The specific question about Derry/Derry GAA has been referred on to the IMOS talk page here. Please can we regard the discussion here closed as IMOS is the right place to finally decide on this particular topic. I will let the discussion there run a few days and then close it myself, if nobody else has done so by then. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Locations in Dublin (city)

An editor has decided to create new categories using the administarive county borders and has set about changing the location of numerous areas including Oldbawn and Saggart[14]. Just said I would inform everyone. Finnegas (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OMG! You mean he's using the actual county to say where people live as opposed to the county that was abolished? Shocking! What next? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just explain what you are doing without the sarcasm, see WP:CIVIL. We don't need PITAs. Dmcq (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged has a long record of renaming categories and articles without discussion. He has made hundreds of disruptive edits of that nature. I started reverting these, leading to a proposal, which he supports, to have me topic-banned. I proposed a topic ban on Laurel Lodged as a more satisfactory solution. If you would like to have a say, both proposals are here. Brocach (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't import problems from elsewhere, Brocach! That AN/I case you mentioned was a case against you and not at all related to this case. The Banner talk 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no specific objection to creating categories based on the so-called administrative counties, but for the Dublin region, these Locations in X categories have a lot overlap with the Town and villages in X. I'm not sure why we have a Town and villages in Dublin (city) category when we already had a Locations in Dublin (city). Perhaps for cities, we could have a Places in X like Places in Leeds. Anyway, I think the whole category tree, needs a good re-organisation. Snappy (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Snappy has a good point. The reason that I created identical categories for the other counties was because of the prior existance of the Dublin city one. I noticed that the majority of locations in the cat were not in fact in the city. With the new cats, they are now distributed to their proper homes. However, Snappy is right - there is a huge overlap with the "Towns and villages" tree scheme. There are some places that are ill defined (e.g. The Back of the Pipes, Dublin) and so are Locations as opposed to villages. Others are quite well defined (e.g. Templeogue) and so it's debatable as to whether it should be in the Locations cat. So when is a location just a location and not a village? Is Pimlico, Dublin a village? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As a start I would propose to merge Town and villages in Dublin (city) into Locations in Dublin (city). While certain places like Pimlico and Ranelagh were villages outside the city, today they are just suburbs, even if they retain a village 'feel' to them. The counties need to be treated differently as some of them are quite rural (e.g. Fingal). Snappy (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That's a good idea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, what is the problem? The Banner talk 19:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the problem is that Finnegas thought that he had ammunition to fire at me, but it turns out that it was just his lack of research of the Category:Geography of County Dublin tree structure. However, it turns out that there was an underlying problem of a high degree of overlap between the trees Category:Locations in County Dublin and Category:Towns and villages in County Dublin. What's the best way to avoid duplication? What are the dividing lines? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the simplest solution just to make Category:Towns and villages in County Dublin a subcat of Category:Locations in County Dublin? (and so on for similar categories for other areas)

A town or village is just a particular type of location. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please create the following page and redirect it for me

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Northern_Ireland (need this page created by someone with admin rights)

1. REDIRECT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_Heritage_Sites_in_Northern_Ireland

I am trying to create a full Northen Ireland portal like the english one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Culture_of_Northern_Ireland norttis (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but isn't that a bit ambitious for your first day on Wikipedia? Scolaire (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

gaelicsurvival.com web site is entirely in Japanese

Please note the surprisingly un-Gaelic contents of http://www.gaelicsurvival.com. See the uses of gaelicsurvival.com on Wikipedia. This website is linked from seven of our articles including Carlow GAA but is unlikely to be useful as a source of game results. The tag line for the external link is "Gaelic Survival - Player Profiles Every Inter County Hurler and Footballer, Fantasy GAA Game". Most likely the site used to work but has now lost its registration. Does anyone have an idea if the real site could be somewhere else? If not, I guess the links should be removed from those articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

House of Prayer, Achill

Could we have some outside views on this article. I'm beginning to feel like a gatekeeper, which is not my intention. RashersTierney (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've often thought of trying to improve it, but really I think it's beyond redemption (if you'll pardon the expression). Have you thought about nominating it for deletion? Scolaire (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Irredeemable. Chop it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting phenomenon and have edited it to what might be a WP-worthy state. However I expect that my work will be swiftly attacked by a flock of flying monkeys. And well done Rashers for your patience. Brocach (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is definitely noteworthy, how many cults do we have in Ireland? Shame on anybody who argues for deletion. I mean ffs, its got claims of: supernatural visions (a woman who claims hear the voice of God!), apparitions, prophesy, stigmata. Also it has clashes with the Roman Catholic Church, allegations of corruption and Garda investigation. Its a gem of an article, and any editor who would even suggest AfD, should hang their heads in shame. Well done to Rashers and Brocach for improving the article, I'm sure all like minded editors will help out in the future. Snappy (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The topic is certainly noteworthy, having been the subject of controversy and Rashers and Brocach have done excellent work on it. More editors supporting their hard work would help everyone out and bring up the quality of the article.Autarch (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who expressed a view here and particularly eds who contributed at the article and TP. Much relieved not to be 'ploughing a lone furrow'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming of articles and categories notification - also affects IMoS Londonderry/Derry section

A discussion is underway in regards to the naming of GAA articles and categories - it can be found here.

Proposal 5 is an issue that relates to the Londonderry/Derry IMoS section that personally I wouldn't have included in this discussion as it focuses solely on the IMoS.`

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mabuska, proposal 5 (now renamed proposal 6) is only there because you asked for it to be included. Scolaire (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes and it affects the IMoS and so it should be made clear that such a sensitive proposal is amongst a set of other proposals as some editors may have strong feelings in regards to proprosal 6 whilst caring frig all about the other 5. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but why say you personally wouldn't have included it in that discussion if it was you who asked for it to be included in that discussion? I never would have included it except that you made that specific request. Scolaire (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories for Hurling clubs in Ireland

Category:Hurling clubs in Northern Ireland by county and Category:Hurling clubs in the Republic of Ireland by county, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to a new Category:Hurling clubs in Ireland. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

GAA club championships categories

Category:Antrim GAA club championships and 31 other similar categories (all sub-categories of Category:GAA County Championships), which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming from X GAA club championships to the title X GAA County Championships. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

See also a slightly-related proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#County_Football_Championships_by_year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Category:Watersports in County Dublin

Category:Watersports in County Dublin, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Foulksrath Castle

Foulksrath Castle needs some independent eyes and probably some research.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers

Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Tipperary hurlers. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)