Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles

Placenames

The IMoS guidance on placenames is a bit outdated. It differentiates between the two jurisdictions in relation to how Irish, Scots or other versions or derivations of placenames are shown, as follows:

For articles on places on the island of Ireland, show the modern name in English, Irish and, if appropriate, Scots in the infobox if the article has one.

For places in the Republic of Ireland, other names should be shown in parentheses immediately after the common name in the lead. For places in Northern Ireland, only show non-English-language names in parentheses after the bolded name if the name in that language demonstrates the origin of the common name. Other names and etymologies can be described in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

The meaning of non-English place names should be given if known. All such meanings should be fully cited. For names that appear in the lead, provide the meaning in parenthesis immediately after the common name. Otherwise, provide the meaning in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

Examples:

• For places in the Republic of Ireland:

Drogheda (Irish: Droichead Átha) ...

Wexford (from Old Norse Veisafjǫrðr 'inlet of the mud flat'; Irish: Loch Garman, meaning 'lake of Garman')...

• For places in Northern Ireland whose names are not derived from English:

Dungannon (from Irish Dún Geanainn, meaning 'Geanann's stronghold')...

Strangford (from Old Norse Strangr-fjǫrðr 'strong fjord')...

• For places in Northern Ireland whose names are derived from English, the other names should only appear in the infobox along with a source.

This may have been premised on the Irish versions (but not other derivations) of placenames having legal status in the Republic. However, nowadays, due not only to the post-GFA regime of parity of esteem but also to the deepening impact of human rights instruments such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ratified by the UK) and the Framework Convention on National Minorities (ratified by both states), the state is obliged to respect the original and authentic version of placenames. I therefore propose to condense the quoted section to provide for one main template for use in the lede, based on the one shown above for Dungannon for Irish place names, and that for Strangford for other derivations. Thus, for most placenames on the island the default template would expect modern name as used in English|Irish version|translation of Irish version. The current provision for annotation only in the infobox of other versions of the (very few) English-derived Northern placenames would also go, so that they would be treated equally with names not derived from English.

I realise that this will require a lot of re-editing, but I expect that others will help and even if not, I am happy to see that through. Brocach (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You've written a lot above and I'm not sure I follow entirely.

One things your proposing is that where, for example, we currently have:

Cork (Irish: Corcaigh, meaning 'marsh') ...

... we would have:

Cork (from Irish Corcaigh, meaning 'marsh') ...

Is that correct? --RA (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the whole aim is to make the IMoS guidance simpler, while encouraging the addition of the meaning of the placename to the lede. Thus (using the examples above) in the Republic, rather than the current lede wording:

Drogheda (Irish: Droichead Átha)

...we would have the more informative

Drogheda (Irish: Droichead Átha, meaning 'bridge of the ford');

...while in the North, the current

Dungannon (from Irish Dún Geanainn, meaning 'Geanann's stronghold')

...is shortened to

Dungannon (Irish: Dún Geanainn, meaning 'Geanann's stronghold').

(The difference might be clearer when you view in edit mode.) The present guidance treats Anglicised placenames as "Irish" if they are on one side of the border and "Irish-derived" if they are on the other, a distinction I can't grasp. My proposal is only that we have succinct and uniform guidance, and one main template for Irish placenames. It would take a while to work this through; not a bot job as the meanings of many placenames are contested or lost, but we can keep the additional text and practice that deals with such cases. Brocach (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's more complicated in Ulster in that Irish Gaelic and Ulster-Scots are both recognised minority languages, so your proposal would look something more like this:

Dungannon (Irish: Dún Geanainn, meaning 'Geanann's stronghold'; Ulster-Scots: Rathgannon)

I think it looks messy, personally. I'd prefer to keep the derivation in the lead and other names in the infobox. — Jon C.^ॐ 15:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose everything except for adding the meaning of places in the Republic. Other than that if it's not broke, don't fix it. As far as I have seen Brocach has never ever had the slightest interest in this field until now and I highly doubt their reasonings in regards to this issue.

The present arrangement was reached after quite a lengthy debate and works extremely well resulting in only one argument (totally devoid of logic and by Factocop no-less) in the entire time it has been around. It is not confusing or outdated or complicated. In fact the section in the IMoS is only there to enshrine what was agreed for the sake of posterity - all articles that are affected as far as we know comply with it. So what exactly does anyone else need to do to be confused by it? Me and Asarlai have done our best to ensure that is especially the case for Northern Ireland articles - and I'd bet I've added more Irish to this Wikipedia than almost all nationalist editors here other than Asarlai. Jon C. has also done his best to add Ulster-Scots to infobox's where there are sourced versions.

Derivation of the name in the lede and the modern minority language versions in the infobox. What's confusing? Also keeps clutter in the lede down, though I've always preferred the idea of the derivation to be in an "etmyology" section to further de-clutter the lede.

I say leave this issue to the editors who actually care about it. Though I must also comment:

1. "However, nowadays, due not only to the post-GFA regime of parity of esteem but also to the deepening impact of human rights instruments such as the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ratified by the UK) and the Framework Convention on National Minorities (ratified by both states), the state is obliged to respect the original and authentic version of placenames." - Unless I missed it, Wikipedia did not sign up to and so is not bound by the GFA or the European Charter or any other such things. It is also not bound by government control otherwise you'd have to back the usage of Londonderry for the city as that is it's official name in it's state (the UK).
2. Also you argument is contradictory: "the state is obliged to respect the original and authentic version of placenames." and "Thus, for most placenames on the island the default template would expect modern name as used in English|Irish version|translation of Irish version." - Many places "original and authentic" Irish names are not the same as the modern Irish. Also how do we not already in the place of the state, respect the original and authentic name of a place? Do the derivations not do that?
3. Also what about places that orignally had an Irish name however where renamed with a completely different English name which has a modern Irish version that doesn't equate to the original and authentic Irish name of the place? One example being Randalstown named after the townland of same name which beforehand was known in Irish as Dún Mór, but in modern Irish is known as Baile Raghnail, a Gaelicisation of Randalstown?

As I've said if it's not broke, don't fix it, and leave this issue to the people who actually care about it. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am bemused by the idea that if I hadn't edited about placenames before (which I have, many, many times), I should "leave this issue to the people who actually care about it". We are equals here. Those who actually care about it (including those of us who have been active on such matters for more than 40 years, Mabuska) know that the huge majority of placenames in all of Ireland are derived from the Irish language. It would then be necessary to construct an argument, which I have yet to see, for treating differently for Wikipedia purposes Irish placenames in 26 of the counties and Irish placenames in the other six counties.

Nothing that I said implies that Wikipedia must slavishly follow government usage. Specifically, I am not suggesting that Wikipedia is bound by international treaties to which it cannot accede. In referring to the treaty obligations voluntarily undertaken by the UK, I am only saying that the UK has formally and irrevocably given up the notion of insisting that only the Anglicised official version of any placename in Ireland had legitimacy. The state agreed to, and so as a matter of international law must, acknowledge the right of people in Derry to use Derry, recognise Ard Mhacha as the original version of Armagh, allow people to correspond with government using the Irish placename if that is favoured in their locality, etc.

Changes in Irish orthography mean that the "original and authentic" version of the placename may not be spelt the same way in 2013 as in 336 CE. Is that confusing for you? We go with the modern spelling of the original and authentic placename.

Unless someone can explain why the two jurisdictions need separate coding for Irish derivations, yes Mabuska, the current anomalous practice is "broke". My proposal is to fix it by applying a single template. Brocach (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Flagicons revisited 2

I opened a discussion on 23 April, explaining why I was proposing to remove the list of icons from the "Flag icon" section. Nobody disagreed with me. I am removing them now. If anybody suddenly decides they do not agree after all, they are welcome to discuss it here, but please do not revert "per BRD". The edit is not bold, and there has already been extensive discussion, and an invitation to further discussion that was not taken up. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 for 'do not revert "per BRD"'. That is probably the most misused phrase on the wiki.

Would you be OK with me adding the historical set of those templates, e.g.:

Similar templates exist for historical contexts:

• Template:Country data Irish Free State
• Template:Country data Kingdom of Ireland
• Template:Country data Lordship of Ireland

I may prod Template:Country data Southern Ireland. It existed only in legal theory. --RA (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Those templates are at Template:Country data Ireland#Related templates, and the Free State one is also at Template:Country data Republic of Ireland#Related templates, so they're indirectly linked to from here. We discovered that the Lordship and the Kingdom icons, at least, are hardly used on WP at all, so I don't see very much point in including them in the MOS. The Free State one has a bit more usage for lists of states, lists of state leaders, Olympic Games and such, so there might conceivably be a case for adding it. If you did – and I'm not seeing a lot of enthusiasm for adding anything more – you need only change the wording to "...templates have been developed to represent Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Free State and the Republic of Ireland..."

I concur re "Southern Ireland". I would also like to see the creation of a Green Flag icon to repesent 19th-century nationalist Ireland, and the "1783" icon renamed as "saltire". Scolaire (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"Nationalist Ireland"? That wasn't ever a state. In the 19th Century, Ireland was part of the UK so the saltire or union flag should be used for that instead. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

We're no longer talking about states. We have established that flagicons are not needed for Ireland as a "state" in that period. This is about "sporting and other contexts". Peter O'Connor was represented by the Green Flag when he was entered for the 1904 Olympics for Ireland (he ended up having to compete under the British flag, but that's another story). There'll be other instances where Irish people or organisations could usefully be represented by the Green Flag. Scolaire (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm assuming you mean this green flag? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

@Scolaire, I've updated Template:Country data Ireland per the previous discussion. I'd support changing the "1783" alias to "saltire" also. However, that is a big piece of work. First a duplicate alias ("saltire") would need to be created. Then a bot process would need to change all uses of the "1783" alias to point to the "saltire" alias. Only when that bot process completes could the 1783 alias be removed. I don't know if it's worth it.

@CoE, the previous discussion was around the traditional green flag of Ireland. The green ensign you link to above was used by merchant vessels. However, it was classified as incorrect in 1872 by the Viceroy of Ireland and were confiscated if discovered by the admiralty. The correct ensigns for Ireland while it was part of the United Kingdom is the white ensign, blue ensign or red ensign. --RA (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No, I agree it's not worth all that trouble just to change an alias when the label isn't visible anyway. Scolaire (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Are GAA biography articles violating Wikipedia policies?

Brocach again seems to be going around imposing their rules on Wikipedia regardless of the actual rules. This time in regards to Gaelic player articles which seem to bypass the need for reliable and verifiable sources, being backed up by what I can only assume is original research. For example the Gabriel Bradley article:

• Gaelic name in infobox with no verifiable source, with no results for a GAA player called "Gabriel Ó Brolcháin" on Google. Is this a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Naming_people, which whilst applies to the lede, also in affect should cover the infobox as for all we know it's a made-up name. Brocach claimed at Patsy Bradley it is their registered GAA name, yet if so where is the source? In the Patsy Bradley example does this still not violate "Naming people" as it is not his everyday used name? If the GAA does work with registered Gaelic names then fine enough I'll accept that for the infobox, but not in the lede.
• Gabriel, Patsy and others are listed, without any sources, as being "Irish" in the opening sentence of the lede. Is the protocol we use for nationality not based on sourced information where they have declared their nationality or such, or in the case of football etc. by the team they select? In regards to Gaelic sports this protocol must be an exception as there is no Northern Irish or British Gaelic football team. It is based on an all-Ireland basis here and so we can't easily deduce a nationality. Whilst the GAA is a nationalist organisation with nationalist ideals at its core, that doesn't mean that everyone who plays it is identifying as being of Irish nationality, as it is also just a sport despite its background, and to assume so is original research.

Whilst Brocach removed "County Londonderry" from the ledes of several of these articles citing it wasn't sourced, he has insisted that the above non sourced information must remain in the article due to it being "long-established", and in one case "suggest you try telling Gabriel that you don't know his nationality", which is really the best argument I've ever read on Wikipedia :-$ It also means that thanks to Brocach's selective use of Wikipedia rules that we have articles on people that doesn't state what country they are from, but states an assumed nationality.

As we all know, being bold is pointless where Brocach is concerned, so I propose that Gaelic player articles are brought into line with the rules and protocols, with a possible exception for the Irish name in the lede if the GAA do work in that way. That does leave the problem of stating where the player is actually from.

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

PMSL ...Atlas-maker (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Material added to Wikipedia needs to attributable to a verifiable source. But, I'm sorry Mabuska, after seeing this diff I can only think: Pot. Kettle. Black.

You say Brocach provided no source to say Bradley is Irish. Well, you provided no source to say he's from Northern Ireland. The example just looks like two people warring over "Irish" vs. "from Northern Ireland" when we all know there's no contradiction in both. --RA (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a few things here that I would like to discuss.

Firstly, nationality/citizenship as per WP:MOSBIO, should only go in the lead Irish is an ethinic group and shouldnt go there.

Secondly, some one from NI maybe Irish or British, or both- by choice, a source is good. If not a neutral stance is better.

Thirdly, GAA clubs and counties require you registrar with your Irish name, so it is indeed correct to use the Irish name in the article, I dont use mine in everyday usage, but am still on a list somewhere with only my Irish nameand address.

Finally, there is a British GAA Mabuska. Murry1975 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Irish" is both a citizenship (like British) and a nationality (like English, Welsh and Scottish). Both are fine by WP:MOSBIO. There is no problem stating in the lead of an article that the subject is "Irish". That said, there is little to be gained by saying "Irish" vs. to "from Ireland" or "from Northern Ireland" ("location" per WP:OPENPARA). I also agree that it can be helpful with respect to Northern Ireland.

I am cautious though about the "source warring" that goes on over issues like this. For example, deferring to source means an ardent editor has to only find a single source supporting either "British" or "Irish" to push a POV on a subject. --RA (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Linking Irish to Irish People, which is an ethinic group (according to the opening line- while the note above the lead states both) is not to be done WP:MOSBIO Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability,

It descibes citizenship/nationality as In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident

In either case someone from NI shouldnt have Irish people linked after their name. Murry1975 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So de-link it or update the Irish people article, whichever floats you boat, if that is causing you brain ache. But including "Irish" is no different from including "German", "French", "Scottish", "Austrian", "Dutch", or anything else. "...country of which the person is a citizen, national..." Irish citizenship/nationality includes Northern Ireland, it is not RoI specific.

Whether someone from Northern Ireland is "Irish" is subject to WP:V, no less than whether someone from the RoI is "Irish". Of course, stating that someone is "from Northern Ireland" is equally subject to WP:V (no less than any other statement). Verifiability issues exist equally in either case.

"In either case someone from NI shouldnt have Irish people linked after their name." Why not? --RA (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Irish citizenship/nationality includes Northern Ireland", with criteria. Also British includes NI, so as you qoute PW:V. As for "stating that someone is "from Northern Ireland" is equally subject to WP:V" while, er they are from NI, now I agree with the above PMSL. Murry1975 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"'Irish citizenship/nationality includes Northern Ireland', with criteria." Nope. There's no 'criteria'. Irish nationality law makes no distinction between either jurisdiction on the island of Ireland. It is applied to the island-of-Ireland.

In any case, irrespective of laws of citizenship, "Irish" is a valid description for anyone from the island of Ireland. No more or less than someone from England is called English (e.g. Andre Wisdom). Individual people may have their preferences as to what to be called. Sources may be requested to satisfy WP:V, etc. Or there may be other considerations. But broadly speaking, there's nothing wrong with describing an Irishman as "Irish" any more than there is describing an Englishman as "English".

"...er they are from NI..." Wonderful. So a source can be provided for that, if necessary? Great. That will suffice so. --RA (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Irish nationality law does have criteria, for both jurisdictions. I will try to phrase this as best I can. Saying somebody from the island is Irish, is basing it on ethnicity, or histortic nationality. But if I have indeed missed that please point to the guideline, otherwise as the WP:MOSBIO guideline states, as above :In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident. Murry1975 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Irish citizenship law applies without distinction to any person born on the island of Ireland. A number of acts of the Oireathas apply. But the most relevant is (still) the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 2001. Different people's individual circumstances may vary, but the law itself makes no distinction between any part of the island of Ireland.

But anyway, with regard to WP:MOSBIO, you have missed a point. First is that it is a guideline: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Second is that the part you are quoting says:

• "In most modern-day cases..."
• "In most modern-day..."
• "In most..."
• "...most..."

Nationalities of people on these islands is an obvious exception where consensus is otherwise. People here are described as being "English", "Scottish", "Welsh", "Manx", etc. when there are in fact only two "nationalities" (of the kind you refer to): British or Irish. And so, just as there is nothing wrong with describing Andre Wisdom as "English" (or "from England"), there's nothing wrong with describing Gabriel Bradley as being "Irish" (or "from Northern Ireland"). So long, of course, as those statements are verifiable.

I personally think it is better to avoid statements of nationality for people from Northern Ireland in general (and prefer use of "from Northern Ireland"). I've been shot down in the past in proposing/supporting guidelines to that effect. How would you feel about one? --RA (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I was just typing a From NI comment when conflict of edit came up when I entered it.

If there is proof that a person identifies as I/B-ish we should use it. But the less politically charge From NI is far better and more nuetral.

I dont know why you have been shot down over that, its straight down the middle. Murry1975 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, I'm cautious about deferring to RS. Sources should be used as a way to verify content, not determine it. --RA (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, though, do we need to say that Gaelic players are Irish at all? It's a sport that's based primarily in (the island of) Ireland, so surely Irish is the default and we should only need to give nationality for a British, American or Australian player? We don't say that somebody is an American American Football player or an Australian Australian Rules player, nor do we say American Football player from California or Australian Rules player from Victoria, so why do we need to say Irish Gaelic Football player or Gaelic Football player from Northern Ireland? Scolaire (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Where people were born or from is often given e.g. Joe Auer. But, at the same, the approach like on that article is far more focused in the way it provides location information. --RA (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually RA, Gabriel Bradley's article states in it that he is from Glenullin, and well it is in County Lononderry, Northern Ireland. Not sourced, but he is from the Bradley GAA family of Glenullin. Far less controversial to state that than stating an unsourced nationality. As there are few sources for many of these Gaelic player articles we need to have some lee-way in being able to roughly state where they are from. Are Gaelic players tied down to their local club when they start off due to the parish-based lower level of the game or can they play for any team? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

In infoboxes and bios. What is the protocol for place of birth, death, etc when dealing with those who are from Ireland? Are they pipelinked to say Ireland? ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Biographical articles for information. Martinvl (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That whole guideline needs looked at again. It's very odd to just give the link as the island. Other former states have articles that people are linked too and this should be the case here also.

For example it's good enough in the infobox to state and link to the Orange Free State for J. R. R. Tolkien's birth place. Piet Cronjé is stated and linked to the British Cape Colony. Caspar David Friedrich is stated and is linked to the article for Swedish Pomerania in his "Life" section. So why can we not link to Kingdom of Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no issue with linking to Kingdom of Ireland or Lordship of Ireland as appropriate (and pipe link as normal). However, practice for people from other parts of the United Kingdom is to link to simply England, Scotland or Wales, rather than to United Kingdom. Folk from Ireland should be treated no differently. So, after 1801, link to Ireland. After 1921, link to Northern Ireland. --RA (✍) 10:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a start date (1 January 1801) to provide a range to the page. --RA (✍) 10:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Implementation of WP:IRE-IRL

Hi, can someone take a look at Fifth year wrt WP:IRE-IRL. My edit was reverted without explanation, but perhaps someone can figure out what the problem is. --HighKing (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Mindless application of IMOS without even reading the article or consuming its content. Did your edit improve the article? No. And that is the question every editor should ask themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That just looks a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. You're essentially saying that WP:IRE-IRL doesn't improve articles - I'm sure a lot of editors will disagree with you on that. Or have you an actual reason (based on sources, logic, whatever) as that guideline was applied to Fifth year? --HighKing (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should be deleted. It just sticks together two similar things with the same name. It is like a dictionary entry. I don't believe there is any reliable source that talks about these two together as a single topic. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL being applied as per commonname, I reverted it. WP:POINTY by the IP. Murry1975 (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

ps agree with Dmcq, should be deleted, poor topic. Murry1975 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That may be so, but that's not what's being discussed in fairness. --HighKing (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And I now also note our anon IP friend has reverted another editor (Murry1975) at Series A Banknotes. At least they're now putting a reason in their edit summary, although their reason is incorrect. The country didn't "become" Ireland in the 90's, it has always been called "Ireland" in the constitution. --HighKing (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

This is now at ANI due to my being hounded by the IP on three articles today. Murry1975 (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Very bad form! The edits at Series A banknotes are IMOS applicable. You have also quoted WP:IRE-IRL, to 3 edits where Ireland wasnt even the recognised name of the state. Shambles and bananas. If you wish to apply these guidelines I should think reading the article would help though I doubt you found the time to do so if you are making 3 edits in 3 minutes to 3 pages. IMOS warriors indeed. Highking and M1975 seem to be the same user, either that or they are spit roasting wikipedia together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you are editing from a corporate ip. Do you really want to be responsible for everyone from there being banned from editing Wikipedia? Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact I see it is annotated 'In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.' Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The second corporate banker who has had problems with IMOS too. Murry1975 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

OK Dmcq, Ill setup an account but I don't think i'm going to get blocked for a few reverts of questionable edits and encouraging talkpage discussion. I'm sure M1975 and Popaice will continue in the same vane of behavour regardless of what sanctions are placed on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your new account should be linked to your old ones. Murry1975 (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

So should your's, but here is my old account for the record [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.107 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The explicit mention of ROI as opposed to Ireland is there for when there may be contextual confusion. No contextual confusion there. Also the claims that Ireland wasn't the name of the state until the GFA is amusing, it's been the official name of the state in the English language for a long long time. Claims that it can't be used before the 1990s is absolute nonsense, pardon my French. Canterbury Tail talk 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Canters, in your edit summary here [2] are you implying that M1975 had applied IMOS incorrectly? As I had made no ref. to IMOS. I do believe that the name of ROI was a bone of contentious between the UK and ROI up until the GFA. But if you have a reference to support it then Ill accept that, otherwise your revert was not welcome given that I had requested discussion and this was again ignored. Message received loud and clear. Discussion as a last resort. Edit war be the first port of call.