Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.94.44.124 (talk) at 06:55, 12 December 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:IECOLL-talk

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

Shortcuts

County Tipperary and County Dublin vs. the "new counties"

OK, rather than opening several discussions on every particular aspect of this question, how about we open one large discussion issue of how to deal with:

... with a mind to a generalisable approach to the question (with regards to categories, infoboxes, ledes, the works).

Rather than taking up MBs of space here, how about WP:IECOLL as a venue. Or a sub-page of this project page? --RA (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was thinking that 24 and 25 were progressing very nicely. They serve as tytpes for the larger questions. If Education can be answered in a simple, civilised fashion, then the larger answers ought to flow from them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upto you where you take it RA, however i feel that Asarlai's previous use of the term "traditional county" which we agreed against is now merited to help define between what are the traditional counties and the modern administrative counties. County Dublin does no longer exist officially, however it is still commonly used in various fields - thus i believe defining counties as either "traditional" as County Dublin is, or "administrative" for the modern counties such as Fingal that do have an official administrative purpose might be a good way to go.
The issue really does need clearing up as the "old" counties and "new" counties need a defining line drawn between them. We already use administrative for the "new" counties, even though officially the term "administrative" has been dropped by the state, and in some places on Wiki the use of "traditional" is used for the older ones. Thus i propose the usage of "traditional" and "administrative" as the line.
The term "historic" in place of "traditional" whilst having due weight, i believe would only cause problems with editors who'd feel uneasy with it. The same for using "modern" instead of "administrative". Mabuska (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. They are just adjectives that are useful to draw a distinction between the two.
Also agree re: "historic" vs. "modern". "traditional" vs. "administrative" is best.
I'll post a link to start a generalised discussion this evening. --RA (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything wrong with traditional and administrative as labels and am willing to support them, unless someone raises a persuasive objection against them. --O'Dea (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. We may be back soon with new administrative counties, if certain government proposals are acted-upon, but the terminology will still work, and the 32 traditional counties will still be there. SeoR (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terms traditional and administrative work better than the alternatives. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to clarify my conditional agreement, above, to the use of the terms traditional and administrative. I see them simply as neutral adjectives of distinction between entities, and not to be used to smuggle in any attitudes, such as "Dublin is a traditional county" to mean it no longer really exists. Nor should the label "administrative" be an attempt to diminish new counties, as in "Fingal is (merely) an administrative entity." A semblance of consensus is building for the terms traditional and administrative, but if they turn out in practice to be an abuse, I will withdraw my support of them. --O'Dea (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, if anything, has been agreed here? Can somebody come up with a succinct statement please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we need some kind of declaratio to finish this issue. Mabuska (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add something like the following to the MOS:

If it is necessary to make a distinction between the counties of Ireland that existed immediately before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (e.g. County Tipperary, County Dublin) and those created afterwards (e.g. South Tipperary, Fingal) use the adjective "traditional" to refer to the counties that existed immediately before that act and "administrative" to refer those created afterwards. Do not place the word "County" before the administrative counties created in the Republic of Ireland since 1994. When using a county as a geographic reference, including in categories, use the traditional counties rather than administrative counties, except where the topic relates closely to local government in the Republic of Ireland. Example:

This goes beyond what was discussed above (and would reverse many of Laurel Lodged's changes), so I am putting it here for discussion. --RA (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the above - clear and succinct. I am concerned that in the absence of something, changes are "just happening" - for example, one Dublin page I watch is now not in any Dublin category, after Places of Worship in County Dublin was removed, and not replaced with anything else - this is really not good enough. I still think the 26/32 counties should be the basis for most categories. SeoR (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true to say that "Places of Worship in County Dublin" has not been replaced with anything else. It has been replaced with Category:Religion in Fingal County and with Category:Religion in Dublin City and with Category:Religion in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County. It will soon be joined by Category:Religion in South Dublin County]] thereby completing the quartet. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a significant improvement as greater specificity is to be preferred to lesser specificity and that each county should have its own category of Religion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you deleted the old category but did not replace it with anything - in the case I saw first, the new category was neither entered into the article text, nor created (it is a redlink, still, in your answer above). If you really feel the need to make these new categories, then the minimum responsibility is to do the job fully. But I do not believe this should have been done without community consensus.SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the RoI, unlike SeoR above, I think that the areas of local government, as defined by the Oireachtas, should be the basis for most categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, with all due respect to the Oireachtas, however well or ill thought-out its actions, I think this is only one element - WP also puts a lot of weight on common understanding. And the admin. counties can, and will, change again - there is much current talk now of merging at least Councils or functions. SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like RA's version of the MOS. I prefer this version:

If it is necessary to make a distinction between the counties of Ireland that existed immediately before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (e.g. County Tipperary, County Dublin) and those created afterwards (e.g. South Tipperary, Fingal) use the adjective "traditional" to refer to the counties that existed immediately before that act and "administrative" to refer those created afterwards. Place the word "County" after the name of the particular administrative county that was created in the Republic of Ireland since 1994 (e.g. Fingla County). When using a county as a geographic reference, including in categories, use the administrative county as the primary reference. Mention may also be made afterwards of the common usage of the traditional name. Example:

Laurel Lodged
(talk) 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:
  • "Tipperary North County", "Fingal County" etc. are not the names of administrative counties per the 2001 act. The names of counties are simply "Tipperary North", "Fingal", etc (see schedule 5). The names of the relevant county councils are the [COUNTY NAME] + "County Council" (see section 11). Appending the word "County" to administrative county names is groundless and unnatural. It is not normal practice. This is in contrast to traditional practice where the name of the county is "County Tipperary", "County Dublin", etc..
  • Normal practice (in the real world) is to give geographic locations in Ireland (north and south) by the traditional county. For example: "The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." (Faleer:2009) Thus, on the fine new motorway running from Cork to Dublin is located a sign (erected by either the NRA or local government) saying, "Welcome to County Tipperary".
--RA (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the facts in point 1 but come to a different conclusion. Firstly, schedule 5 spells the counties (correctly) as "North Tipperary" and "South Tipperary" (not as "Tipperary North" above). Secondly, my proposed MOV uses that exact spelling in the wikilink. I only add "County" afterwards to differentite it from the traditional counties where the name "County" would precede the county name (e.g. "County Wexford") if this agreement was to be followed. So to repeat, the names of the counties creaded after 1994 are "North Tipperary", "South Tipperary", "Fingal" etc. They are counties and so this needs to be made explicit. The options are "County North Tipperary" or "North Tipperary County". My suggestion is for the latter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tipp North/North Tipp was a typo. Regardless of it, the adding of "county" after (or before ) it is artificial. It doesn't have a basis either the legal nor common name for it. --RA (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the typo point. As regards the artificiality of adding "County" (either before or after the named entity), this artificiality is true for both the traditional and non traditional counties. As you rightly point out, Schedule 5 is the standard for the name to which we should adhere. It can be observed that the area of local government known as "Wexford" is spelled as "Wexford" and not as "County Wexford". Similarly, the area of local government known as "North Tipperary" is spelled as "North Tipperary" and not as "County North Tipperary". Getting back to the main point, that proposed MOV convention to be adopted is that the distinguishing noun of "County" (as opposed to Tipperary town or Leitrim village) be added to the name of the area of local government. The proposal is that this distinguishing noun be added BEFORE the name of the entity in the case of the traditional counties (e.g. "County Wexford") and AFTER the name of the entity in the case of the non traditional counties (e.g. "Fingal County"). Is there any objection to this proposal? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "artificial" I mean that they are not called that, either officially or commonly, in the real world. For the traditional counties, it is common practice to add "County" before "Mayo", for example, to make "County Mayo". There is no such common practice for Tipperary North or Fingal. You are right that there is no such region of local government as "County Mayo" (again as an example), just as there has been no region of local government called "County Dublin" or "County Armagh". However, "County Mayo", "County Dublin" and "County Armagh" still exist in a real sense as geographic locations, even if they have ceased to be as places of local government.
The difference, I suppose, may be legitimate depending on whether we are talking about "County Mayo" as a geographic identifier or as an area of local government. So, for example:
  • Castlebar is in County Mayo but is the seat of Mayo County Council (not County Mayo Council or Mayo County Council):
  • Nenagh is in County Tipperary but is the seat of Tipperary North County Council.
  • Newry is in County Armagh but is the seat of Newry and Mourne District Council.
  • Swords is in County Dublin but is the seat of Fingal County Council.
The difference, I suppose, is that we are muddling geographic places and local government areas. which is confusing since in most cases they overlap but not always. Cork, for example, is is in County Cork but is not in the administrative county of Cork. --RA (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coming out of the above post, I suppose, my proposal is to refer to the administrative counties (or district council in NI) by their councils, and give them by their full name (i.e. "X County Council"), whereas to refer the traditional counties to as places and give they the traditional name (i.e. "County X"). --RA (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There might be some merit in that. However, I'd be concerned that in a list or category that contained ONLY the tradional counties, that a reader might walk away with the impression that those tradiotional counties were still the basic unit of local government in the state. . At a minimum, some marker or disambig or See Alse in the leads would be necesary to alert the reader to this pitfall. Also, please note what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say on the topic. ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/140431/county/1581/United-Kingdom?anchor=ref708947 )

In the United Kingdom the county, or shire, has historically been the principal subdivision of the country for political, administrative, judicial, and cultural purposes. Each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—is divided into a number of historic counties. These historic counties, in many cases, no longer correspond to current administrative subdivisions but remain an important focus of local identity. Some judicial jurisdictions still use historic county boundaries rather than current administrative boundaries; and cultural activities, such as the sport of cricket, are still organized according to historic counties.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Disagree with RA's proposed changes as technically its wrong as it sounds as if County Tipperary is the official location of the town, when in fact it is North Tipperary. No doubt most sources will state County Tipperary anyways but time will tell whether they'll eventually get with the times or remain stuck in the past.

The present intro to the Nenagh article is a good basis to work on. I'd propose altering it to:

Nenagh ([ˈniːnæ]; Irish: Aonach Urmhumhan) is the county town of North Tipperary, Ireland, and is part of the traditional County Tipperary. It is the administrative centre of North Tipperary and in 2006 it had a recorded population of 7,415. It is located in the former barony of Ormond Lower, and is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe.

Or something along those lines. Mabuska (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mabuska's analysis and can Support his suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No doubt most sources will state County Tipperary anyways but time will tell whether they'll eventually get with the times or remain stuck in the past." - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
"...and is part of the traditional County Tipperary" - That is a very odd way of saying that a town in such-and-such a place. Is Magherafelt part of the traditional County Londonderry?
However, there is nothing incompatible about what you have written with the guideline I propose above. --RA (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree with the guideline you proposed for the reasons stated above. Difference being that Northern Ireland has only ever had six counties and hasn't divided any of them up or redefined them into other counties, i.e. Dublin and Tipperary being prime examples. Mabuska (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mabuska, I could go with your Nenagh example. I'd rather not tack "County" on to the end of things, and you have put forward a workable model.
But on NI, I have to disagree - they redefined the admin. divisions entirely back in the 1970's, into a mess of "districts" and these, not the counties, form the basis for local government. But on all sides, the six county names are still observed too.
Overall, I think we should not make too much of this - the old counties continue, as they also do in NI and England, Wales, etc. - and those other locales manage well enough the co-existence of traditional counties and quite distinct current (and changing from time to time) admin. structures. SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually your wrong on the councils. The council districts created in 1973 actually replaced the Rural and Urban District Councils of NI that existed from 1921 to 1973. Their creation may coincide with the death of counties as adminstrative divisions but that is all they share - one did not replace the other.
If you go even further back, the Rural and Urban District Councils of NI where preceded by those of Ireland as a whole (1898-1921), then the Sanitary Districts (1878-1898), and then the Poor Law Unions (1838-1898). Mabuska (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that no consensus has been reached, and there are various ideas on the table (at least Laurel Lodged, RA, Mabuska), why is the creation of categories with e.g. Fingal County (as pointed out above, a construction with no validity in the real world) going ahead? This is not how WP is supposed to, or usually does, work. SeoR (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Category "Fingal County" does not exist. The Category "Fingal" exists but is not new (created in 2007). SeoR is perhaps thinking of the children of Category "Fingal". These children are identical to the children of Dublin city (e.g. education / sport /religion buildings). They contain the contain a consistent convention of placing the word "County" after the name of "Fingal". Who disagrees with this convention? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said this was about categories? It's about what to label the old traditional/historical counties versus the modern ones. Mabuska (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I think we can get one part of this issue settled and put to bed. We have by on large agreed that the terms "traditional" and "administrative" make best sense when differentiating between the old and newer counties. Whilst the issue in regards to settlement intros is still up for debate - i think there would be no issues with using the terms for the county intros. For example they currently state at the end of the first lede paragraph: "one of the thirty-two counties of Ireland". May i suggest we change this to "one of the thirty-two traditional counties of Ireland".

Funnily enough Asarlai had them like that until i proposed removing the term earlier this year. Mabuska (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What then would the lead for North Tipp say, "one of the modern adminstrative counties of Ireland" without numbering them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Mabuska (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that this proposal meets approval through the deafening silence? Mabuska (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North Tipp etc would be "one of the 29 administrative counties of the Republic of Ireland" jnestorius(talk) 06:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be best if a diplomatic veil was drawn over the number. The link provided by Jnestorius goes t0 "Tier 1 local government". A quick count shows that 29 entities have the word "county" in their title, however an additional 5 entities have the word "city" in their title. As the section title makes clear, all are Tier 1 entities and in law have parity of esteem. This leads inevitably to the following calcultaion (29 + 5 = 34). This can only give rise to confrontation between purists, moderates and irredentists. For this reason, I think that the formula "one of the modern adminstrative counties of Ireland" which did not number them, would be accurate enough without antagonising either camp. I commend the solution to the house. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike the word "modern" here. The word "administrative" is sufficient to disambiguate from the "traditional" counties. jnestorius(talk) 12:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative however can refer to modern or traditional counties depending on context. I agree that not mentioning the number of counties can avoid the issues of exactly what number etc. should be used. Mabuska (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with user Mabuska. All counties are administrative. They have no other purpose. To say that 1 county has a function of administering local affairs while another county exists as a geographic area since time immemorial, is just nonsense. Even very old counties (and none is particularly old) originally fulfilled the function of administering local affairs. So "administrative" on its own will not solve the problem. It needs to be supported by either "traditional" or "modern" as explained above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So any more input on this or shall we summarise and set it in stone? Mabuska (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please summarize the proposal. I take it that "traditional" and "administrative" will be used to differentiate as most appear to agree with that approach, but that there's no proposals for dealing with specific examples like the lede for Nenagh? --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i'll propose that since we can agree to the difference between traditional and administrative in use for county intros, that we implement it. The issue however around places within counties that have a different tradiontal and admnistrative such as Dublin/Fingal, Tipperary/North Tipperary will still be unresolved and open for debate and discussion. Mabuska (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take the lack of objections to this as a sign of indifference or consent? Mabuska (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Law, silence always implies consent. But for the avoifdance of doubt, here's my positive consent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew exactly what the proposal was, then I would know what I was consenting to. In general, I am happy to DAB, but only where necessary. So Tipp/Dub/NI then fine, go ahead. But I'd suggest that the guideline is documented in WP:IMOS first. And I don't see any need to go farther than traditional/administrative. 'modern' is unnecessary. Fmph (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To use traditional/administrative is unanimous from the looks of it anyways. Essentially Fmph, this issue has two fields - county intros and settlement intros. As county intros are the least problematic i've proposed we implement the distinction in its intro lede to state "one of the 32 traditional counties of Ireland". The settlement intro however is problematic as exemplified by Nenagh, is unresolved as of yet, and so my proposal is to implement county intros and leave settlement intros open for continued discussion. Mabuska (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tipperary category renaming

Two relevant discussions at WP:CFD:

Both are group nominations to remove the suffix "County" from the category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein:
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

History task force

A discussion on Solaire's talk page has proposed to create a History task force of this WikiProject. There have been a few posts/discussions at Talk:History of Ireland that used that page as a central point for discussion on history related matters. However, the appropriateness of using an article talk page for wider discussion was (quite reasonably) questioned. The proposal is to create a task force rather than a wholly new WikiProject so as to not divide energies or to split this WikiProject.

What are views of others on this? --RA (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that the interest for this isn't exactly overwhelming, but on the assumption that the silence might be caused by people not noticing RA's notice due to other stuff I'm writing this as a poke of sorts... I think this might be useful, but we would need a critical mass of at least five users I think, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Mabuska expressed an interest, and the discussion was on my talk page, so by your reckoning we only need one more interested party to reach critical mass. I wouldn't expect this to explode into life immediately upon creation, it's more that we would have a forum to discuss any issue that arises on an article talk page, but is bigger than that one article. Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially i see it as Scolaire stated - a forum to discuss issues. Mabuska (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour; I tend to add particular things to articles but - a) am too lazy and b) can't face an edit war, to rewrite general pages like History of Ireland (1691–1801).Red Hurley (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks, not sure if this is the correct place to post as I am new to Wikipedia. Anyway, I wanted to expand on the ((Clonbanin Ambush)) article. I recently bought a house on the site of the ambush and, because of that, I have done quite a bit of research on it. Is it ok to just work away at it, or should I get permission from somewhere? I'm not au fait with the etiquette here :) Cathaloc (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headlands by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories

Propose that these sub-categories be deleted. There is a sub-category for nearly every seaward county. Most have only 1 page entry. They take sub-classification to ridiculous levels. There's barely enough to justify even 1 national category. But I'd retain the national one Category:Headlands of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for the Category:Headlands of Northern Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to take it that silence implies consent to proceed with the deletion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have lodged a formal proposal to delete in the category deletion log page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be convenient to link to your proposals. I eventually found them, if anyone is interested:
jnestorius(talk) 19:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next Irish Meet-up

Hi folks, as we discussed at the last meet-up in Dun Laoghaire hosted by Clem, which was very interesting and a great opportunity to meet fellow-Wikipedians, I'd like to invite all interested to meet up in Dublin on Friday 3 December. The proposed venue is in South Richmond St., Dublin, (about 20 mins. walk from the city centre and next to the Luas green line), to start about 7:00 pm. Again, as we discussed, I've arranged that all attending the meet-up will obtain free entrance to a fund-raising concert for Haiti in a nearby venue which will start later that evening, and if wanted a cut-price meal at any of the local restaurants and a free drink or two. I'll supply further details if we can find enough people to come along, and will extend this invitation to Wikipedians from other countries who may be interested in coming along. Hohenloh + 02:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice with further details posted at Wikipedia:Meetup/Ireland. Hohenloh + 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, Hohenloh. Count me in again. --RA (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then, me 2! Fergananim (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea; I can't make it. I've been away for a month and soon off again.Red Hurley (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the inclement weather conditions we'll go ahead with the meet-up (and the music), as planned. The LUAS is running and taxis are always available in Richmond St. Hohenloh + 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Category:Iarnród Éireann stations

Propose to re-name Category:Iarnród Éireann stations to Category:Iarnród Éireann stations in the Republic of Ireland by county.
Proposer's rationale. For consistency with other geographic and infrastruture categories. For example, Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland by county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not needed. Iarnród Éireann does not operate outside of the Republic of Ireland. It does operate jointly with Northern Ireland Railways, the Enterprise train service between Dublin and Belfast but does not operate any of the train satations in NI, so this proposed renaming is totally superfluous. Building and structures exist everywhere so need disambiguating, Iarnród Éireann does not. Don't unnecessarily complicate category names and don't disambiguate that which does not need disambiguating! Snappy (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with previous, I don't think this amount of detail in a category is needed. Due to steps taken by Todd Andrews there aren't that many stations in the country anyway (compared to most other European countries, for example). Hohenloh + 02:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised re-naming proposal. What about Category:Iarnród Éireann stations by county which would indicate that it just contains a bunch of child cats, as opposed to a list of all stations in the Roi (which it does not contain)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to this. Btw, you created Iarnród Éireann stations in South Tipperary and Iarnród Éireann stations in North Tipperary County, could you standardise on appending County or leaving it out, otherwise the results are just sloppy looking. Snappy (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. My preference is to put the word "county" after the name of the modern administrative county, per discussion at 1 above. I'll request a re-name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Category:Geography of County Tipperary.

Nominator's rationale this category is empty. The contents have been moved to the appropriate categories in Category:Geography of North Tipperary County and Category:Geography of South Tipperary County. The category is now redundant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not redundant. It is needed as a container category for the South + North Tipperary category, and for all the sub-cats which do not have equivalents in the South + North Tipperary categories.
Unfortunately, many of those subcats such as Category:Media in County Tipperary , Category:Secondary schools in County Tipperary were not divided into North and South Tipp equivalents; they were simply emptied, and placed in much more general categories relating to North or South Tipp.
This huge exercise had the effect of removing large numbers of articles relating to County Tipperary from important parts of the category tree. For example, after Laurel's spree, a reader would have gone to Category:Secondary schools in the Republic of Ireland and found no Tipperary schools in there. Same for Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland: there was no longer any Tipperary subcat of Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland.
I have just spent several hours rebuilding Category:County Tipperary, and and the rest of the category. It had been painstakingly built over many years by lots of editors, and it is disgraceful that it was simply removed without consensus, by one editor. Next time an editor wants to delete categories, use WP:CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is redundant. It is not needed as a container category for the South + North Tipperary category. They are self contained. One might as well say that Carlow-Kilkenny needs a container cacategory. This would be absurd as no such county of Carlow-Kilkenny exists, even though it has bytimes existed as a constituency. Similarly, no such county of Tipperary exists even though it has bytimes existed as a constituency. The traditional county was legally abolished.
Sub-cats which do not have equivalents in the South + North Tipperary categories. Too true. There is no law that says that every county category must have the same number and type of categories. How many articles would appear in the category of "Headlands of County Laois" or "Peninsulas of County Ofaly"? Very few I would imagine. Where few or indeed no articles exist, there is no point in creating a category for them. It is suffucient that they appear in their logical parent. For example the 7 (count them, a whole 7 ) articles in the cat "Education in South Tiperary" sit quite happily there as opposed to "Secondary Schools in South Tiperary".
Where categories do not have equivalents, in many cases the best thing to do is for them to be simply emptied, and placed in much more general categories relating to North or South Tipp. Category creation for the sake of category creation in the case of North or South Tipp would be wrong.
This huge exercise of removing large numbers of articles relating to County Tipperary from the category tree was entirely necessary. One does not expect thanks for it but would does not expect wholesale reversion without discussion. that's just rude.
In the event of sufficient articles being present to justify the creation of the Category:Secondary schools in North Tipperary County, I would see no difficulty in that category being attached to Category:Secondary schools in the Republic of Ireland. Same for Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland.
I have spent several hours building the categories of North Tipperary and South Tipperary. It had been painstakingly built over many months by me, and it is disgraceful that they were simply depopulated without consensus, by one editor. Next time an editor wants to depopulate categories, use WP:CFD. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you checked, you would see that I have not depopulated any' of the North Tipperary and South Tipperary counties. What I have done is to add them to the appropriate County Tipperary parent categs, and to restore County Tipperary categories for the article which you removed entirely from relevant parts of the category tree, such as rivers, media and secondary schools.
You may be right that there are not enough articles to justify the creation of the Category:Secondary schools in North Tipperary County, though the convention is that when a category is part of an established series, it is acceptable for some of the categories in that series to be sparsely-populated. However, what you are completely wrong to have done is to depopulate the broader categories. You could -- and should -- have added a school to Category:Education in South Tipperary County without removing it from Category:Secondary schools in County Tipperary.
I have also done the same with Category:County Dublin, where you had engaged in massive destruction of the category tree. You emptied categories out-of-process, removed dozens of schools from secondary school categories, rugby clubs from rugby club categories, and so on.
This all arises from your fixation with the idea that because County Tipperary and County Dublin are no longer ad administrative counties, then have no continued existence a geographical entities. I see no consensus for that view, and I suggest that if you want to say "no such county of Tipperary exist" to any of the fine GAA players from that county, then you better be able to run like as fast a rocket. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entity GAA County exists. The entity Tipperary GAA also exists. What do the doings of private clubs have to do with affairs of state? By the way, London GAA is a tier 3 club. Is it also an Irish county? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counties Tipperary and Dublin exist in common usage, in folk memory, in historical events and historical people. I have no issue with these traditional counties having categories pertaining to such subjects. It would be improper to attribute their historical doings to present boundaries. However, in all other matters, it is possible to attribute entites to their modern administrative successors. This is particularly true of entities rooted in geography; a church is in a defined place, a school is in a defined place, a building or structure is in a defined place, a hotel is in a defined place, a river is in a defined place etc. There is no impediment to placing these entities into the modern cat. It follows logicaly therefore, that they should not go into the traditional cat. You may call it a fixation, I'd call it logic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the correction about depopulation. I would still characterise what you have done though as non-consensual and disruptive behaviour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel, quit trying to invert reality. I have restored categories which you depopulated without going through the process of seeking consensus at WP:CFD. If you want to describe my undoing of your unilateral, out-of-process destruction as "non-consensual and disruptive", then you entirely misunderstand how consensus works: the onus was on you to seek consensus for dismantling these status quo, not for others to seek consensus in restoring it. You were repeatedly warned (on your talk page) by other editors not to do this, but you persisted despite the objections.
As to the substance, it's simple: I have no objection to using the new adminsitrative counties as a basis for geographical categorisation. What I do object to is the removal of categories based on the traditional counties:
  1. . That was entirely un-necessary. Your preferred categorisation scheme works just fine by having the new adminsistrative counties as sub-cats of the traditional counties, which is the situation now that I have undone your out-of-process depopulations
  2. The way you did it was systematically destructive, because you removed a lot of detail from the category tree. I disagree with your view that it is always wrong to create small categories, because the long-standing consensus is that they are are fine if part of a well-populated series (se WP:OC#SMALL). However, even if we agreed that it was not appropriate to have, for example, Category:Secondary schools in North Tipperary County, there was no need to depopulate Category:Secondary schools in County Tipperary. You could simply have added the schools to Category:Education in South Tipperary; but instead you chose to remove them from any categorisation as secondary schools. And you did the same thing across County Tipp and County Dublin to schools, FE colleges, rugby clubs, churches, sports venues, mountains and hills, and many other topics: hundreds of articles were stripped of category details, without following the proper process at WP:CFD.
All this arises from your fixation on the bizarre idea that a county ceases to exist when it when it ceases to be an administrative unit: that's plain wrong. As the head articles County Tipperary and County Dublin make clear, the counties are still used for many purposes, even though they are no longer units of local government. They are well-known, widely accepted geographic entities, with boundaries which are well-known and have been stable for over a century, and the worst that can happen from using them as the basis of geographical categories is that some articles need to be dispersed to sub-cats. That's no problem; it happens all the time, and it's actually a practical benefit, because when ad editor is not sure which of the new smaller counties applies they can instead use the parent categ for the traditional county, and leave someone else to sub-categorise
Your obesssion with the current administrative status is misplaced, because these categories are not legal documents. They are navigational devices for organising articles on a geographical basis, and for that to work the entities need to be stable, widely-used, have clear boundaries, and not overlap other entities. The traditional counties do just that.
One good example of this is in Northern Ireland, where the traditional counties continue to be used as the basis of geographical categories, decades after they ceased to be local govt units. See for example Category:County Down and its subcats.
Another example is the use by the Irish government of former administrative units. Take a look at the Schedue to the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009, which defines the constituencies used for elections to Dáil Éireann. As you'll see, it relies on "former Rural districts", which were abolished in the 1930s. That works perfectly, because the former legal districts remain defined places. If you disagree, you are of course welcme to go the Supreme Court and argue that every Dáil election since the abolition of the rural districts has been invalid, because the constituencies have not had defined boundaries. Please do let us all know how you get on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategorization of Members of the Council of State

I'd like to diffuse Category:Members of the Council of State of Ireland into subcategories, but there are difficulties. Comments appreciated at Category talk:Members of the Council of State of Ireland#Subcategories?. jnestorius(talk) 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Dark Age: proposed re-nameing

Ireland Dark Age Propose to re-name this article to "History of Ireland (100BC - 300AD)". This would be consistent with the convention of the other articles in the Category:History of Ireland by period. Would then be the link with the Prehistory of Ireland article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Irish Dark Age? Fergananim (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're entering another dark age now! Hohenloh + 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page for agreed soltion. This case may now be closed. 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Religious sees in Ireland

Re-name from Category:Religious sees in Ireland to Category:Dioceses in Ireland.

What's a homonym? Is it some of kind homosexual? We don't want their kind around here. I oppose this, whatever it is. What a Religious sea? Is it like the Irish sea but holier? It sounds nice, can you swim in it? Snappy (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the proposer is all at sea! Homonyms are words which have the same spelling and pronunciation as each other but different meanings. I suggest that "synonyms" is what is meant here. Hohenloh + 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to inject a little humour into your gloomy day. If you're more comfortable with synonym, I can go along with that. Merriam-Webster lists 3 definitions of "homonyn": 1. one of two or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning 2. namesake and 3. a taxonomic designation rejected as invalid because the identical term has been used to designate another group of the same rank. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homonym?show=0&t=1290605932 Snappy provides an example of the first kind (see / sea). My point was about the third kind (see / diocese). Neither of you gentlemen mentioned the obvious excruciating pun (Holy See - geddit ?). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAA counties category

Hi; a discussion on renaming and/or subdividing Category:Gaelic games by county is at Category talk:Gaelic games by county#Categorisation. jnestorius(talk) 10:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of townlands of County Cork

My goodness, this is an article of epic proportions. Too epic, really. It is huge (the biggest page on WP), unwieldy and for some users will probably never load. As someone on the discussion page pointed out, most of the townlands are not at all notable (some are just 1 acre!). As another said, all important townlands are at the relevant category. I believe we need to seriously trim down this page or delete it entirely. Thoughts? Thanks. —Half Price 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is big because Cork is Ireland's biggest county. I'm against deletion, but I wouldn't oppose splitting the page if there was support for it. There are well-written lists of townlands for every county (see List of places in Ireland). ~Asarlaí 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are pretty big too. WP:SPLIT says that pages over 100k should almost certainly be split. WP:SIZE says "with some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all... If possible, split the content into logically separate articles. If necessary, split the article arbitrarily." Maybe the latter is what is needed. Thanks. —Half Price 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the vast amount i think it would be better to split them into townlands per barony or civil parish. Mabuska (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to help if I was given clear instructions. Townlands of Ireland are not my speciality though, oddly enough! —Half Price 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airports in Republic of Ireland

Template:Airports in Republic of Ireland has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland&oldid=401913830"