Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Disambiguation task force

Discussion on the intro

I'm still compiling the table that shows the extent of how Ireland (as island) articles currently jar against each other - especially in confusing the two Ireland meanings (somtimes it's the state, sometimes it's the island), and with sometimes blurring in Northern Ireland with the Irish state. It will be up sometime today. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

moved here: --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll get nowhere if you insist on having an intro that is wildly ignorant of Irish history, Irish constitutional law and lacks world point of view (rather than the UK PoV that was there before I corrected it). When the rest of the world and all mainstream encyclopedias say one thing and you say another, then don't you think that maybe you might be just a teensy bit wrong? --Red King (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

From on human being to another - I've had it hugely from one side today, please don't give it me from your side too! We can work together on this. I'm am not propatating anti-Irish propaganda, I'm just trying to write something we all can agree in (so doesn't present fact that are disputed). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Up and running!

As this has been a couple of weeks now, I'm starting with a proposal. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not the best idea I've ever had - the proposal is now on hold (in the top right archive). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

there is talk at the MfD of this taskforce opening with a section in which all contributing editors can make a statement on what they want and don't want to see (presumably having a personally named sub-section each). The rules would be that nobody can be personal, and in return, nobody can edit within each other's sub-section. Somebody uninvolved then collates it all.

I personally would prefer a set of pertinent questions, as people will then be inclusive, and are more likely to be fully open, in my eyes. My worry is that a 'POV session' that is too un-regulated in content will omit too much, and could lead to data that is so varied, cagey, and even ambiguous that it will be very hard to meaningfully compile (in fact, the act of compiling could be a dangerous thing in itself). People have different ideas on what are hard 'facts' too. If we can together compile the best questions to ask, things would be much cleaner. A question I would suggest is "Do you insist that Wikipedia should have an article named "Ireland" that includes historical/political information of Northern Ireland?".

Does anyone else like the Q&A version (and perhaps has a question to ask?). The "question and answer session", by the way, is a valid approach for these things - but can be difficult (even unwise) too in sensitive areas: so the questions need to be accepted by everyone first.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the last few words are the most significant. The first priority has to be deciding what questions are acceptable to everybody. Actually asking the questions is the easy part - if the first part has been done right, it's often a mere formality. Scolaire (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would bet BHG is working on a neutral kicking-off page. She is fully aware of all the issues involved here and she is eminently qualified to present all of them in a non-partisan way. Any perception of possible bias is a failure to WP:AGF and is a lack of understanding that her starting points are existing wiki-rules. Give her a chance; she will do a good job. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

She suggested us using a neutral person herself, so I doubt it. I'm not suggesting a she has a possible bias - she's admitted to having one herself! It's hard not to when you are so involved, and she has much to say on the subject. She approached the AfD as pro the status quo, and negative about the posibility of change (though of course this can change). We are much better off having her participating.

We need someone:

A) We don't know - and so no one side is particularly eager to have, which makes the other side paranoid.

B) Is totally neutral in terms of optimism/perssimism about that idea/likelyhood/possibility of change.

Either that or we sort it out between ourselves, and get unbiased mediation if and when we get stuck. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• No. She suggested it be wrapped up by a "neutral" person. But she did not preclude herself from writing the starting off page. Which she would do well, informedly and neutrally. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't you work on what we have? What do you think is unfair about it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• It does not approach the issue in the way BHG suggested on your talk page - which everybody (except you) is happy to go with. Her suggestion gets everyone stepping one pace backwards in a way that can only take things forward without thoughts of forum-shopping. Your proposal by contrast is that we work from the Matt Lewis starting point. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what "everyone" is happy with? You have ignored the questions I asked you on what is wrong with the intro. Or is it too good? And you have ignored to my basic concerns with BHG - she was negative about change from the outset, so she is NOT a good conditate for this. It's not a character judgement - it is a simple fact. That you want to see her work on this so much, simply makes me paranoid - I haven't forget those stupid emails you sent me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED admin involvment

• WP:MEDCAB - does anyone object if I ask here for a WP:UNINVOLVED admin to start this up? I have postponed the opening proposal (as an act of good faith), and the taskforce is now needing direction (although I am currently myself building the usage tables). We all seem to agree that we need to start with some kind of individual opinion-giving session. My preference is for us to work out questions between us, and each of us answer them. It seems we need a neutral admin to start this up, as whatever we chose to do, we need someone we can all answer to and have no personal problems following. Whereas certain polls can demand participation and discussion, these kind of approaches can more easily be ignored without somebody neutral guiding the show.

I've also posted this on the the MfD, please reply here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• It can't hurt to ask Medcab if somebody would be willing to get involved. On a cautionary note, though, it may take quite a while before somebody is actually installed. I think we should use the time to discuss the kind of approach we might take, and canvass interested editors to get involved so that we can have as broad a section of opinion as possible. I also think that discussions such as this one and the "Up and running" one above should take place on the talk page, and that this page could be spring-cleaned per the ideas I have expressed elsewhere. Scolaire (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would be a mistake and lead to very long and contentious disputes about history. At least some of us think that an awareness of the issues may be more important than neutrality. Actually the more I think about it, the more I think that is important. I'm happy to support someone like BHG who while on the other "side" appears more than able to take a neutral but informed position. I'd suggest that those of us who have been active protagonists (and that includes Scolaire and Matt) should step back for a bit and let some new voices structure the debate. --Snowded TALK 06:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hear what you're saying, Snowded, but TBH I think it's wildly optimistic to think that some enthusiastic editor is going to come on here and do all the donkey work while we look on in admiration. At best, they will be willing to moderate or chair a process that involved (in the rolling-up-the-sleeves sense) participants have agreed on. The dialogue between Matt and myself is very new, and if the two of us, coming from opposite directions, can work towards a structure or process that might move this forward, I can't see how any third party, whether uninvolved or neutral-but-informed, could object to that. Also, I believe that, whoever takes the job (if anybody does), we will all need to re-state our positions in some format or other, but I don't see why that should lead to "very long and contentious disputes about history" (I presume you mean the history of this debate). Nobody really has scores to settle, do they? Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people will need to be involved Scolaire, but let someone less involved structure it. You are a strong protagonist as it Matt, stand back for a bit (although the table and supporting material are great work). You and Matt are taking a route which brings in solutions far too quickly (my opinion) in keeping with the way this task force was set up. You have both been active players in the debates. My STRONG advice, stand aside for a bit. --Snowded TALK 08:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Solutions? The entire thrust of my argument is that we can't begin to talk about solutions until we have a proper (i.e. clear-headed and prejudice-free) discussion of all the issues, and we can't even begin to do that until we reach a consensus on how the project should be structured. My reply to Matt's idea of "pertinent questions" was, "the first priority has to be deciding what questions are acceptable to everybody." In other words, asking pertinent questions has to be the outcome of the process, not the opening of it. My reluctance to stand aside has nothing to do with ownership of the TF (far from wanting to run it, I avoided even posting here as long as I could) but rather with the conviction that if the "strong protagonists" let go, nobody else will take up the running, least of all a neutral. Believe me, I would far rather go back to Easter Rising - I'm not good at multi-tasking. Scolaire (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When I suggested MEDCAB I was really just looking for places we could ask for an admin who is willing chair this kind of thing - nothing beyond that. I (as I'm sure are others here) am happy to do move things along according the various consensuses on where to go, but only a neutral has a chance of getting everyone (or near to everyone) responding. I thought MEDCAB might be the best place to ask. We could also asked the Admin noticeboard perhaps? (but do general admin have the same experience chairing these things?) BHG is tempting as she is clearly popular, but I can see many possible future problems there if things get a bit rough. If we start from neutrality nobody can complain. She was rather negative about change when she initially supported the status quo, and suggested herself that we need someone neutral - lets take her advice. Shall we post a request in the admin noticeboard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC (UTC)

Last things first: BrownHairedGirl has hardly been online since she posted to the MfD two and a half days ago; I don't think we should assume she's really keen to get this job! As far as asking someone to help out, I don't think a neutral has any chance whatever of getting everyone responding - that's our job. A neutral can only guide us, curb our worst excesses of enthusiasm and try to assess what comes out of the process. And why does it need to be an admin? Many people with excellent mediation skills have no desire to be an admin, and some admins have even shorter fuses than we do. Seek wherever you can; I still think we'll be lucky to get anybody at all. Scolaire (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has disagreed with this all weekend, so I've placed this request at MEDCAB. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Duh, I disagreed with it and in the prior discussion several editors supported the option of an informed editor prepared to be neutral. I placed a request on BBG's page asking for her to clarify her intent. If she says no then OK I would support this, but even then the request needs qualification or we will all wind around the same old arguments again and again. --Snowded TALK 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What kind of language is "Duh"? Brown Haired Girl suggested a neutral party (which she is manifestly not), and hasn't been involved with this for a few days now. You did not state you that have sent her any message. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I clearly indicated that I thought we should look at the internal choice first Matt, as as far as I am concerned the matter was not closed. Given that you have jumped into action (defining yet another problem by yourself) I have provided the information that I sent her a message (look at her talk page) to clarify issues. I have also said that if there is not an internal agreed candidate that I would support the proposal. just leave it a couple of days and see what happens, the world will not end over this issue. --Snowded TALK 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth did you not tell us that you had contacted her?

After all I have said regarding her previous involvements and expressed opinions (with Irish issues, specific editors - the whole thing) - the chances of her suddenly turning up and putting herself forward (after suggesting that we need a neutral too) are slim indeed! She has even said she rarely gets involved anymore, and that is she for the status quo, and can't see the likelihood of change! She'd be fantastic as a contributor, but hardly as a chair! And where is she anyway?

And where is she anyway? As Scolaire said above, it doesn't look like she is still closely following this. She's on Wikipedia sporadically these days too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down Matt. She had been silent for some time and not responded so I popped a note on her talk page. Normal practice. I don't see you and Scolaire asking permission to discussions on yours. She may well not be interested, she may not be acceptable, her lack of involvement and the response of other editors when she engaged was, I thought ecouraging, even though her position is different from mine, Given the sort of polemic and invenctive I wouldn't blame her (or anyone) for never coming back to these and related pages.

Whatever before a mediation request is made it should be discussed, You have this distressing habit of initiating Wikipedia processes without consultation, then getting indignant if people don't immediately fall in behind you. I think for the record that there are serious issues with anyone neutral who does not have a knowledge of the sensitivities and the history. --Snowded TALK 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you quit your "calm down, Matt" and personalised "Mat..." edit-note tactics? I find them provocative. I do not "get indignant when people do not fall behind me" - I happen to discuss things with great patience, and have the courage to put myself in positions where I get a huge amount of flak, and where I have to stand my ground in no uncertain terms. Wikipedia has benefitted from it a number of times, and simply makes me an easy target for easy blows which a simply not fair at all. You said "duh" to me above - if you had kept the taskforce in-touch with what had done, and your reasons for it, you would not have wasted my time tonight. Finding someone is clearly the step we are all waiting for! Saying what you did at MEDMCAB is not going to make anything easier for us - can you remove the whole request section, to replace a fresh request when you are happy? I does not look very inviting to someone right now.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment on the MEDMCAB says what I said here Matt, lets wait a few days and see what happens, in all probability there will not be an internal candidate, but I would like to see if one is possible. I was checking some stuff in background, not imagining that you would go to MEDMCAB without further discussion so I don't see the point about keeping the task force in touch. My experience of discussions with you would not support the "great patience" position but I accept its your perception and I don't doubt your good intentions and good faith. I would suggest a discussion on the words to brief a MEDMCAB request here to secure commitment ad make it attractive. --Snowded TALK 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How was it unattractive? We have to be honest, and it wasn't off-putting was it? It was perfectly sound - why have a dig at it? What is the point in that? It is simply requesting a chair - nobody said we must pass the wording in here first. I don't want to delete your comments - perhaps you could delete the section and copy it here to work on, as I suggested above? And you can then play around with it until we get the same thing again. How I lose patience is depends to the length of time I have been patient - I always know what to expect with you (measured repetition and a stab at my supposed temper when I say something you don't like) but it never makes it any easier to deal with you, especially when you go your own way - as you often do, despite all your insistence that others go by the letters of the book. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

i think it would be more attractive if it clearly came as a result of consensus gained here first as to the brief. Happy to take your text as a base and suggest some changes here (although that will have to wait for tomorrow after PST (I am in San Jose not the UK this week) as I have work to complete tonight and a conference to keynote at tomorrow morning. However if you think that the result will be that "we will get the same thing again" then there is little point (unless I have misread your comment). Measured repetition is a reasonable response if facts and arguments are being ignored, but you are entitled to your opinion about me as I am in turn about you. --Snowded TALK 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When you have given SG enough time, can you remove the extra comments from the request and add/remove whatever you want. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Will do, tomorrow (today in the UK) is probably long enough. I will post a draft here for comment --Snowded TALK 04:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Being BOLD

I've moved all of the discussion-type sections from the project page to here, archived the previous discussions (now that the MfD is closed), and slightly re-formatted the project page itself. The main change I've made is that what was headed "Current approach on Wikipedia" etc. is now headed "Statement of the facts by Matt Lewis". It should remain as a statement of the facts, but nobody thinking of joining the task force need feel that they have to subscribe to all the facts before they do. What is above the TOC can still be edited, and I would like to see something like a consensus statement (i.e. input from as many people as possible) at the top. My own suggestion in a user sub-page, User talk:Scolaire/IDTF main page. It is a sandbox, so anybody is free to edit it, add comments below it, or comment on it here. In a day or so, if it's not ruled out altogether, I'll put it on the project page and it can be further edited there as desired. Oh, and I've also done a page move so that this is now a subpage of IMOS, as agreed at the MfD. Scolaire (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the intro per my ideas above. Please edit it as required until we get a statement of the case that we're all happy with. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've modified slightly, as I believe it's more accurate to say that the locus of the dispute was on the name of the wikipedia article, not the state name itself, which isn't in dispute, I believe. What was in dispute was the best way to handle the ambiguities resulting from different entities having the same name, and trying to find the best/least-bad DAB solution. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the name "Republic of Ireland" is very much in dispute, Martin. To summarise the argument for you, the Constitution of Ireland says "The name of the state is...Ireland", while the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 says "the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." Anti-ROIers say that therefore this is not the name of the state and that anyway, since the Good Friday Agreement, nobody uses that name any more. There's also disagreement with using ROI within other articles to refer to the state, hence the piping "solution". Scolaire (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In addition, you'd be wise to give weight to the fact that since "Republic of Ireland" is the official British name according to UK domestic law (1949 act), no surprise that this translates into an added reluctance to accept the official British name over the official Irish name. It also goes some way to understanding why the term "Republic of Ireland" appears in so many British publications and media. --HighKing (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It speaks volumes for Wiki and the total disregard for WP:NPOV when we find the name of the article about a country is the official name of the former colonial occupier rather than the modern, common, internationally recognised name of the country. Sarah777 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make my own statement about all that in due course. This task force seems to have gone awfully dead since Matt Lewis reduced his involvement. Scolaire (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly surprising, seeing as it was very much a one-man band. ETA: Not even linked from the main IMOS page, either, it appears. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only just realised what you were saying there (I had been trying to figure out why ETA should be linked from IMOS). I've added the link now. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuing to be bold, I have now added my statement to the project page. If anybody wants to take up any points with me, I would ask you to open a new section here on the talk page. I am happy to provide clarification, but I'm not willing to be drawn into an argument. I would encourage other participants, especially those who have posted here, to think out their position and make a similar statement of their case. Scolaire (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary

Having read a good bit of this argument, it seems to me that there are a number of different points that should be separated.

The two opposing views appear to stand in either of these two camps

Refer to the state as "Ireland" <-----------> Refer to the state as "Republic of Ireland"

There are a number of arguments for and against each of these terms, each with their own merits. Alternatives have also been discussed, none have achieved consensus. --HighKing (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See my post above. It's kind of relevant to what you just said. Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So, is there any sort of agreement or consensus that has come out of this? It seems to me that there are two related issues. One is "how should we refer to the state [compared to the island]" and the other is "how should we name our article on the state [compared to the island]". While the two are related, they are not interdependent. We regularly refer to articles without using the name we give them using pipes. So I would suggest a two step process:

• Resolve the first issue by deciding the state should be referred to inline. It seems obvious to me that the state should be referred to as "Ireland" unless it needs to be distinguished from the island, and only then should it be "the republic of Ireland" or "Ireland, the state". Likewise, the island can be referred to as "Ireland" unless it needs to be distinguished from the state, and then it should be "the island of Ireland" or "Ireland, the island". Personally, I can't quite see why this is controversial, but what do I know. Whatever is decided the name of the article can be piped in, meaning this issue can be resolved by itself.

• Then we have to decide which article, The island or the state (or neither), gets the coveted Ireland title. I really don't think it matters all that much, since piping would make the title all but invisible anyway. I would be tempted to argue that the island has it currently therefore it should stay that way. But if its causing a problem for some people, and the people who take issue are willing to go through and fix all the incorrect redirects themselves, then let them do it.

I apologise if I'm stating the obvious here, but thats my tuppence (or 2 cents). Rockpocket 01:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, Rockpocket. The short answer to your first question is no. The task force was pretty well inactive for all but a month until I put up my own tuppence-worth on Saturday. There's three of us trying to crank it up again at the moment.

On the question of how we refer to the state there are two opposing, but not exactly opposite, POVs. Those who oppose "Ireland" see it in terms of the state "laying claim" to the whole territory of Ireland; this can be done subtly, or even accidentally, by linking to the wrong article, thereby sometimes changing the meaning of a sentence. On the other hand, there are those who believe that to call it anything other than the "constitutionally correct" name of "Ireland" is an insult to the Constitution and therefore the people of Ireland, that "Republic of Ireland" is a name pushed on us by the British government and therefore POV by its very nature. In between are a lot of people including, I believe, most Irish Wikipedians, who think that this is not an issue in the real world and that the important thing is to write articles that are readable and unambiguous, without edit-warring. All three are inclined to get very emotional when the issue comes up and inevitably people start talking of a "political agenda", although the lines are not drawn on any clear "Ireland v Britain" or "unionist v nationalist" lines, so it's sometimes hard to see what the supposed "agenda" is. Piping can be used and was used and was used for quite a long time, but eventually it became another weapon in the war - see here for example.

As for the article name(s), I'm afraid I don't share your view that the question will be easily resolved once the other issues are dealt with. The article name is too closely bound up with those issues and, for me at least, it is the more important of the two issues (see my statement on the project page). How the two articles, and any eventual dab page, are named is going to be a critical factor in determining how the state and the larger country of Ireland are dealt with across WP in the long term.

That's my (somewhat biased) view, anyway. Keep watching this space and maybe (hopefully) some pattern or framework for consensus will emerge over the next few weeks or months. Scolaire (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess its only seems easy(ish) to resolve if one doesn't have a horse in the race. I understand its galling to have one's own country referred to by a name coined by a colonial power. But at the same time, we can't get away from the fact Ireland herself chose, in establishing her name by constitution, to align the name of the state with the island (for understandable political reasons). Its also a fact that that the island and the state are not (currently) the same thing and therefore need to be disambiguated for our purposes. So, I guess my first question is, for those who object to using the "Republic of Ireland" as a disambiguation title, how would they propose to disambiguate between our articles on the Island and the State? I ask because I see lots of people moaning about British Imperialism, but only a handful doing anything constructive to propose a solution. Rockpocket 18:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Howabout changing Republic of Ireland to Ireland & Ireland to Ireland (island). Or, use Ireland as a disambigous page & move RoI to Ireland (country). GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, these have all been proposed, discussed and rejected, which is really the reason we have the task force. What's actually needed IMO is for people to put down in a clear-headed and unemotional way why they are opposed to the various alternatives. Actually, it's pretty easy to come up with possible compromises, but coming up with an effective compromise requires you to know beforehand exactly what POV you are addressing, and how the proposal satisfies that POV. If you read my own statement on the project page, you will see why I have problems with both "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (country)", and why I object to "Ireland" being either an article on the state or a dab page. Since I'm in a majority of about 51% (hence the failure of umpteen RMs over the years), these kind of issues need to be thrashed out before we can see what kind of a solution might have a chance of working. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody explain what the objection is to "Republic of Ireland" as a dab? It is an official name provided for by the Dublin parliament, it is accurate (the country is a republic), and it still refers to Ireland (even though its jurisdiction does not correspond with Ireland). The "imposed by the British" claim is a myth. Mooretwin (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

People need to read the discussions first instead of asking the same questions as though they were "a new fine question that had never been asked before" (Kipling). Just four short paragraphs up, right here on this page, I have explained to Rockpocket as best I can what the perceived problem with "Republic of Ireland" is. If you think you can help to resolve the issue, why not read up the discussion and then try to put together a coherent statement of your own position. FWIW, my own POV is pretty close to yours (on this question only, I hasten to add), and you can read my statement on the project page. Scolaire (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just my 3c. I've seen this "It's a myth" many times now, and it's not new or novel, and it's been answered. To be blunt, if an editor continues to make the same point again and again without taking into consideration the responses or subsequent discussions, it's difficult to take the editor seriously. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is where I argue in detail that it's a myth. Can you point me to where that argument has been answered conclusively? Scolaire (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Scolaire's and Sarah's statements

I don't have any well organized/articulated 'statement' to make on the project page. But I just wanted to comment on this notion of 'country.' To me, it simply doesn't matter if Ireland (the island) is a 'country.' Whatever it is or isn't, Ireland--meaning the island--is a very, very widely used term. That, to me, is the important point. I don't think this project should become an argument on whether the island is a country. I know people have made comments such as "sovereign states trump islands on Wiki" in these debates, but I see no evidence that this is, of necessity, true. I tend to see China and Korea as interesting ways of looking at how to organize terminology in these kinds of situations. Even if the prized "Ireland" location isn't given to the state at Wiki, it doesn't follow that the state needs to stay at ROI, but I do hope that a battle over "country"-ness doesn't dominate this debate. Nuclare (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Like you, I really don't want the debate to centre on whether it is a country. Really, I was making two points in my statement: that the word "country" is ambiguous, and so "Ireland (country)" is a non-starter for dab purposes; and that the word "island" suggests something small or insignificant, something less than a country or countries with a shared geography and people, which is why I also dislike "Ireland (island)" as a term. I'm not sure from Sarah's statement if she believes the use of "country" for the whole land was meant as a "territiorial claim". It certainly wasn't. I only meant that if I got into conversation with a Belfast man about the Ulster team's famous victory over Munster, I wouldn't be aware what church he goes to or who he voted for in the last election - only that, to me, he is a fellow-Irishman. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for info, Georgia (country) is so named, so at least Ireland (country) would be consistent. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you follow your own link? Ireland (country) is itself a dab page, so how could it be useful as an article name for either "Ireland" article? Scolaire (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Georgia (country) is so named only because Georgis (state) would itself be ambiguous. This ( as far as I can see)is a unique case where 'country' is less ambiguous than the more legally precise term 'state'. RashersTierney (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it is a DAB page - the second link is unnecessary. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion! That's why there's a task force here. Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the word "island" suggests something small or insignificant - places like Australia have been referred to as an island - it simply means a land mass surrounded by water. But if "island" is a problem, would you be happy with something like "Ireland (land mass)"? There are two entities called Ireland and we need to disambiguate them somehow; I appreciate your view is that we should stick with the status quo, but if things were to change, do you have any views on what the names should be?

In particular, in response to your statement on the project page (which I think is well written and clearly explained) I should point out that WP policy is to use the most commonly used names, which aren't necessarily the official names. So while the current situation may be correct in terms of officialdom, we need to consider how the entities are referred to on a day to day basis, and what most people mean when they say, or search an encyclopaedia for, "Ireland". Waggers (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Land mass" is far worse than 'island'. I understand what Scolaire is saying, but "island" may be the only choice. Maybe. In response to your experience, as related on the project page -- I'd say we need to differentiate between people who are going just to Northern Ireland and those who are going to the island and will be, or potentially could be, going to both NI and the ROI. Yes, if one is just going to NI, its not unlikely they'd say "NI"--and we have a Northern Ireland page to define that. But if someone plans or might cross the border in either direction, how often would someone say "I'm going to Ireland and Northern Ireland"? Somebody might, sure, but, imho, "I'm going to Ireland is the far more common way of describing such a thing. Nuclare (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I just did a search of the phrases (in quotation marks) 1) "I'm going to Ireland" vs. 2) "I'm going to Ireland and Northern Ireland" vs. 3) "I'm going to Northern Ireland and Ireland." #1 yielded over 19,000. #2 yielded 1 and it was a 'Count the number of countries you've visited' context, where the ROI and NI are counted are treated as different countries. #3 yielded 0 results. Not that these sorts of things *prove* much, but, just an fyi... Nuclare (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Waggers (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it is. Out of the "going to Ireland" links, how many referred to going to anywhere in the island as opposed to going to locations solely in the state of Ireland. For example, I'd use the phrase "I'm going to Ireland" in both contexts. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that. The search certainly isn't any scientific thing, and I wasn't meaning to present it as such. It was just a whim to test the phrase "I'm going to Ireland and Northern Ireland." The presence of the "I'm going to Ireland" uses is less the point than the *absence* of "I'm going to Ireland and Northern Ireland" uses--if you see what I'm saying. But, again, the search was just an afterthought whim. My first and main point was exactly what you have confirmed: that "Ireland" is used in both contexts. Nuclare (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New Ireland project

Hi all,
I've started a new Ireland related project which I hope will bridge a gap I feel exists between the two Wiki community's with an interest in Ireland related matters. The project has just started but I hope it will allow us to work together at first on uncontroversial articles such as Sports in Ireland and if successful I hope will allow for a more constructive and friendly approach to the controversial issues Gnevin (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Task Force terms of reference

It occurred to me that it would be sensible for the terms of reference of the task force to include the Derry/Londonderry issue. It seems that those arguing for Ireland over Republic of Ireland (on the basis of it being the "official name"), appear not to make the same argument in relation to Londonderry. It also seems that there may be greater scope for compromise between the two opposing camps if the task force remit extended to both, since neither camp is likely to be entirely happy or entirely unhappy with a "Ireland (state)/Londonderry" or "Republic of Ireland/Derry" solution. Mooretwin (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's a definite synergy there, and examining both issues at the same time might enable us to reach a sensible compromise sooner. On the other hand, I'm slightly concerned that if we throw too many issues into the mix we'll lose our focus and resolve nothing. I'll be interested to read others' views on the suggestion. waggers (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I'd see "Ireland/Londonderry" and "Republic of Ireland/Derry" as being a pair. Not "Ireland (state)/Londonderry" -- Evertype·✆ 15:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend this as another place to the continue the argument over terminology. Regardless of your views on "Ireland (state"), what are your views on extending the TOR? Mooretwin (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have little confidence in it getting anywhere if we aren't getting anywhere with this dispute. -- Evertype·✆ 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is precisely because we appear to be going nowhere with the task force, that I make this suggestion. Mooretwin (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Look. I prefer Ireland = the state, Ireland (island) = the island, and Ireland (disambiguation) = dab. You prefer Ireland = the island, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (state) = the state, and Ireland (disambiguation) = dab. Evidently I cannot have my preference, and you cannot have your preference. There is an actual compromise on offer: Ireland = dab, Ireland (state) = the state, and Ireland (island) = the island. Now, this compromise is neither my preference nor yours. For my part, I am willing to accept this compromise. I am not interested in hearing bluster arguments "proving" that "the description is the name" and so we must accept the status quo. They have convinced no one and we are all pretty intelligent people here: they are unconvincing because the logic does not convince, not because we are thick or obstinate. Good gods, I am sorely sick to my eyeteeth of this endless dispute. I, and others, in good faith, have offered to accept the compromise: Ireland = dab, Ireland (state) the state, and Ireland (island) for the island. Will you, in good faith, accept this compromise? It's time for you to show some good faith now. Let us, for the love of Ireland, move forward. -- Evertype·✆ 13:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresent the situation in order to make your "compromise" proposal look more favourable. "Ireland (state)" still involves using the name for the whole island for one portion of it, and it is a misrepresentation to say that I favour it. On practical grounds it is also an ugly construction that is unlikely to solve the problem for using the term in the texts of articles. I cannot support anything that will involve having references to "Ireland (state)" or "state of Ireland" (neither of which are common names), simply because of an irrational opposition to the perfectly adequate and common "Republic of Ireland". The only circumstances in which I could countenance supporting "Ireland (state)" as the title of the current "Republic of Ireland" article is if there is agreement that "Republic of Ireland" may be used within the text of articles for disamiguation and clarity. Further, by your own logic, the "Derry" article ought to be renamed "Londonderry", since that is the "official name" (and therefore, apparently, the only choice for the article title. Mooretwin (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of misrepresentation shows that you are not Assuming Good Faith. I note that you could not resist arguing or commenting in the poll below. Well, fine. Calling people who prefer the constitutional name of this state to a 1948 statutory instrument "irrational" as you have done is uncivil. Declaring what you "cannot support" in the context of this discussion is telling: it suggests that you are not, in fact, willing to compromise in good faith. Ireland (state) is no worse than Georgia (country). Londonderry and Derry is a red herring; this argument is about this and that argument is another argument. (And I don't care what they call that article.) Your ultimatum that you could only accept "Ireland (state)" if we agreed to permit "Republic of Ireland" in articles is just setting the stage for wholesale introduction of "Republic of Ireland" in every article everywhere. I don't think we're that naïve, and I do think that you're not showing good faith. This is regrettable. Please get over it. As I said: let us, for the love of Ireland, move forward. -- Evertype·✆ 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you have misrepresented my position, and I stand over that. I concede, however, that it may have been unintentional. Regarding your suggestion that I am not willing to compromise in good faith - ironically - does not assume good faith. I have indicated that I may be open to compromises in the form of packages that attempt to deal with a number of related disputes. Ireland and Georgia are red herrings because the two Georgias are completely separate entities, whereas the two Irelands are not. I also stand by my comment that opposition to Republic of Ireland is irrational - there is little by way of rational argument against the term other than the mantra that it's not the "official name". The need for disambiguation is conceded, yet the obvious solution Republic of Ireland is rejected for no reason other than an apparently irrational objection to the term. "Ireland (state)" "Ireland (country)", "republic of Ireland", etc., are not "official names" either, yet they are apparently more acceptable.

Finally, it appears to me that a group of editors has created an organised opposition to the term Republic of Ireland, resulting in edit wars, etc. and then inevitably leading to a deadlock requiring intervention and "compromise". The compromises put forward, however, in reality is not a genuine compromise because it means purging the term Republic of Ireland from Wikipedia (in place of some other term about which the campaigners magnanimously are willing to negotiate): the very objective of the campaign against the term. Mooretwin (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(Deindent) Bringing this back to a "terms of reference" question. I understood that the basic terms of reference of this task force were to create a set of guidelines around:

• when/how/where to refer to the state as "Ireland", and when as "Republic of Ireland"
• when/how/where to refer to the island as "Ireland", and when as "the Island of Ireland"
• (and possibly - recently introduced) when/how/where to refer to any constituent parts of the island by the names preferred by certain communities
• etc

And to do this (for now at least) with the assumption that the filenames would remain as they currently stand. (Given that we've never been able to agree on any moves). If this is the case, then this "taskforce" can succeed. If however the TOR are thrown open to include a framework for block "moves" of articles, then THAT issue doesn't need a taskforce. It needs to follow RM. (Also - frankly - it won't solve any problems. It will make many of them worse. Because - even if "Ireland (state)" or some other Wikipedia only filename is applied - we STILL have the issue of clarity of DAB when referring to Ireland in body text. Because we STILL have the issue of clarifying which entity called "Ireland" is being referred to for the reader. An issue - in my view - which would actually be made worse by adding in parens suffixes which cannot be used in body text. Anyway - my point is this: Either we are looking for a way to address the DAB issue in the text. Or we are squabbling yet again about filenames. If its the latter, and its not done in the context of the former, then move it to RM. Guliolopez (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points. I'm not sure that the TOR are clear. Certainly the task force discussion has focused almost entirely on the titles of the articles, and not on references in the texts. Mooretwin (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out below, the opening sentence is very clear that the task force's remit includes the titles of articles as well as the usage within them: "The Ireland disambiguation task force is a workgroup of Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), initiated for the purpose of centralising discussion on issues surrounding the use of the name "Ireland" in article names and within articles." waggers (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To go back to Mooretwin's proposal, I think it's a crazy idea (1) because as far as I'm concerned the "Derry/Londonderry issue" was resolved years ago, and (2) because it relies on the misconception that the Ireland/ROI debate is a nationalist v unionist one. It's not. As many nationalists favour ROI as Ireland, and several British "unionists" favour Ireland over ROI. As far as the opening sentence is concerned, I put it there in September and at the same time asked everybody to edit it until it reflected everybody's views.[1] Since there was only one small edit, I assumed that these were the agreed terms of reference. Any agreement that is reached will in any case involve changing (or agreement to leave) the article names. Scolaire (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Do you agree to support, even if it is not your first preference', this compromise?

1. Move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland

2. Move Ireland to Ireland (island)

3. Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)

Please do not argue or comment. Please simply indicate Agree or Disagree or Abstain. Please. -- Evertype·✆ 13:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree -- Evertype·✆ 13:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree -- ClemMcGann (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree -- for reasons stated above - there needs to be a package deal. Mooretwin (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree -- waggers (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree  DDStretch  (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree HighKing (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree: it is not a compromise, it is a very old proposal. Scolaire (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree RashersTierney (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - Per Scolaire I fail to see how the term "compromise proposal" can be applied to this. The precise setup that is being proposed (involving an "Ireland (state)" label) was first proposed back in 2005. It has never seen any consensus as a reasonable label for the filename to use for the country article. (Mainly because it is an artificial (Wikipedia only) DAB label. And there already exists a real world, common use and legislatory supported commonname which addresses the DAB issue). Guliolopez (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree -- Djegan (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree only NPOV way forward --Snowded TALK 05:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree ww2censor (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - to me its the most encyclopedic thing to do.Yman88 (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Bazza (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Stadt (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree I also agree with this (perhaps it's the simplest of all). --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree Nuclare (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree See comments passem ad nasuem. It is not a compromise, it is also not rational.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment --- This is not a compromise proposal, it is simply a proposal to purge the term Republic of Ireland from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree And please AGF. --HighKing (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how "this is not a compromise proposal" is a sufficient reason for disagreeing with the proposal. Ignore the word compromise - the above is a proposal. Yes, it's been proposed before, but that doesn't matter - it's a proposal that has a good deal of support behind it and making a fuss over whether or not it's a compromise is a disruptive distraction from the main issue. waggers (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already disagreed with it (see above). It's important to make it clear to others that it is not a compromise, lest they be misled by the title. Mooretwin (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely it is a compromise between the current article name (RoI) and the name supported by all the references (Ireland). Why is it important whether it is a compromise or not? It is a proposal. Not ideal, but a compromise ClemMcGann (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This proposal will not result in the exact outcome of what many editors argued for, but this is the best solution for meeting the arguments of most of the people. It's why it's referred to as a compromise. Mooretwin sees nothing wrong with the status quo, which explains his disagreement (which is allowed, nothing wrong with disagreeing!). Once a consensus is reached, I'm sure all editors will abide by it, even those disagreeing. --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear that the remit of the Task Force is the title of the articles. See Giulopez above. Apparently the remit is how to refer to the Republic of Ireland in the text of articles. In which case, this proposal is irrelevant. My own view is that the title, references in text, and perhaps Derry/Londonderry ought to be thrown into the mix and a package compromise agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you are throwing any argument you can lay your tongue on at this proposal. But the remit of the task force is clearly articulated as initiated for the purpose of centralising discussion on issues surrounding the use of the name "Ireland" in article names and within articles. --HighKing (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you make your comments under Guliolopez' contribution above. He raised the matter, not me. I think a discussion is needed in the interests of clarity.Mooretwin (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bah. Seems like you really don't want a resolution here. Of course the article titles are connected here. What compromise? You've offered nothing but your insistence that the Irish state be called "Republic of Ireland". Week after week after week. Now you want to change to terms of reference so you can drag it out some more. Bah. -- Evertype·✆ 12:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read Guliolopez' contribution above re. the TOR. I think he raises an important point which requires clarification. As for your claim that I don't want compromise, please read my comments on this page. Mooretwin (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this issue has been proposed before doesn't include the progress made since then, nor the apparent spirit of compromise that now exists. It's about time that editors realize that there is no one perfect solution, and that the current state of affairs is no longer acceptable. Compromise is needed and required. Rereading your comments as you have suggested does not enlighten me as to your alternative compromise, rather an attempt to further complicate the issue by connecting others issues with this one. --HighKing (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any progress. There has been endless discussion, but no progress that I can detect. That the "current state of affairs is no longer acceptable" is your opinion. I have suggested that compromise can come only from a package deal on title/text references, and I think throwing in Derry/Londonderry makes such a deal more likely. These are creative suggestions. Please AGF rather than attempting to portray me as someone unwilling to compromise. Mooretwin (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I do not object to the use of the formal charter name of Londonderry be used as the name of that article. I do object to Mooretwin's attempt to barter this, but :-) in the spirit of compromise I would accept the name change to the Derry article. (What happens internally with articles as regards ambiguity is a separate though related matter. I would however VERY MUCH object to a further delay in the issue of naming the Ireland articles. -- Evertype·✆ 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - is it clear that this task force is going to reach a conclusion as a result of a vote of editors? Or is it for a "neutral" party to weigh up the arguments on their merits and come to a conclusion? (If the latter, any vote should be a multi-option, preferential system, which can better achieve a compromise outcome. Otherwise votes in favour of one general principle can end up being split across similar proposals, meaning that a popular general principle is lost.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - What's this poll for?

Per my earlier note, I'm entirely unclear as to the purpose of this impromtu "straw poll". I thought we created the taskforce because we needed a model for moving forward that didn't involve repeating the same poll every month. As this proved a waste of everyone's time. Because it didn't solve the fundamental DAB issues. And hence this taskforce was created - to make a stab at the fundamentals. Now I see that the taskforce itself has become a polling booth. With no new context or framework. With nothing new confirmed since the last poll, what can possibly come out of this that is different from the previous 10+ polls? (If anyone is counting, this is at least the 10th such poll since this one in early 2006. And higher if you go back to some of the original discussions in 2005 or before.)

This latest poll seemed to spawn from a discussion about whether the TOR of the taskforce should include the Derry/Londonderry issue. I personally don't understand this "stream of conciousness" progression, so you'll have to excuse my confusion. Regardless of how it spawned however, if the intent of this poll is to prompt discussion on updating/confirming the taskforce TOR to include block naming/renaming articles, then fine. (If this is the case however, I would point out that it should really be addressed on the talk page for the taskforce. The taskforce page itself should, I would have thought, been the place for publishing any resulting guidelines/etc. Not as the forum for formulating them.)

If however this poll has another intent, and is yet another "vote" on the renaming of articles (outside of an RM process), then in itself it is not a means of progressing an RM move/rename. Nor does it help move the rest of the taskforce TOR issues forward. (Which, as noted, would remain unsolved - as we wouldn't have a means of addressing reader clarity on meaning of "Ireland" in body text. And would actually be worse, as it would leave us with labels that could not be included in the text without always relying on complex piping structures.) I would also point out - also for possibly the 10th time - that all this voting/discussion/etc is unlikely to get us very far. Simply because we are trying to change/solve a real world problem armed only with the Wikipedia filenaming system. Namely that (well meaning as we may be) we are unlikely to be able to solve the problem that the Republic of Ireland Act caused. By "act of Wikipedia" alone. Namely that there are at least two entities that are equally referred to as "Ireland" in the realworld. One of which has common use and (though controversial) legally formed alternative. What we should be doing therefore is looking for a means of working within the context of the realworld problems. Instead of trying to solve them. (By agreeing (as above) when to say "he is from Ireland", "he is from the Republic of Ireland", "he is from the island of Ireland", etc, etc. Instead of trying to invent new labels.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you might want to consider (i) no one from the pro ROI group seems to come up with anything other than continuation of ROI (ii) that ROI was removed in the GFA and we need to move on and (iii) that a lot of us are getting really fed up of the perpetuation of old language when a perfectly valid alternative is available (see the proposal (iv) that this is linked with multiple related issues on many pages with at least one ARBCOM set of sanctions. If you and others had accepted the earlier suggest to move away from ROI and debate alternatives that might make a non-vote solution more possible. --Snowded TALK 18:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the anti-ROI brigade's idea of compromise is: "purge ROI from Wikipedia". A zero-sum victory doesn't really seem like compromise to me! Mooretwin (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

@Snowded: Re (i) it was certainly my hope that someone, from either side, would come up with a workable alternative, but nobody from either side has come up with anything new - precisely because we're driven back again and again to voting on "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (state)", whether or not it's presented as "compromise". Re (ii), as I said in my statement, I have yet to see a single reliable source cited that ROI "was removed in the GFA", or even that anybody in Ireland asked for it to be. The GFA was in the internet age so if this is a known fact there should be plenty of links to where it is spelled out. I won't respond to the other points because "fed up" arguments do nothing for me and "other issues" are not relevant. Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Although it does appear that a change in consensus has taken place. This poll shows that a lot of editors have agreed that this is a good (maybe the best) compromise. There's so many combinations of alternative, etc, that only a compromise will work - feel free to suggest your idea of a compromise and we can poll on that too, since polls are a legitimate way to test for consensus. --HighKing (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I genuinely hate to keep saying "I disagree", but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this. All that has happened is that the task force has narrowed back down to almost the same core group that started it - who all agreed with each other to begin with. I can't think of any editor who has actually changed his or her stance in the last two months. The worst thing that could happen IMO is that you would reach a 100% consensus (because your opponents all withdrew from the TF) only to find that you are defeated once again in an RM. But maybe I will suggest something (see below). Scolaire (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A result

The vote is 13 - 5 for this proposal -

1. Move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland

2. Move Ireland to Ireland (island)

3. Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)

The disruptive proposal below should be deleted. Sarah777 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice of intent

Based on the clear and overwhelming consensus in this vote I will move these articles as per this consensus within 24 hours unless Waggers can explain why he has ignored the manifest consensus expressed here and explain why he has proposed a disruptive alternative proposal. This behaviour is totally unacceptable unless there are reasons for this apparent disruptive action that are not obvious. Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bullying tactics won't work. Mooretwin (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Woah, Sarah! Your 15-3 vote is in the task force only. The task force is heavily dominated by people who agreed with you from day 1. It does not reflect consensus on Wikipedia. You cannot move any articles without an RM. Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask again (I think this is the third time): what's an RM? Mooretwin (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A requested move. See WP:RM. But Soclaire is incorrect - there is no policy stating that an RM needs to be made before the move - as the page says, "is a place for requesting the retitling of an article, a template, or a page in the Wikipedia namespace". RM is really for moves that require administrators' assistance, such as where page histories need to be merged etc., or for inexeperienced editors to request help with a move from more experienced editors. waggers (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing disruptive about exploring other avenues in an attempt to secure an even greater consensus. The poll above made it clear that it was a question of support "even if it's not your first choice". Despite Scolare's comments below, the only discussion taking place above was around the name of what's currently the Republic of Ireland article. Based on that, everyone who agreed to the above proposal should be happy with the one below, as there's nothing in it that contradicts the one above, and those whose objection was based purely on the RoI issue get to state whether they support the suggested moves to the other articles. The intention of my new poll was not to ignore the RoI issue, but to show that we can actually make some progress on areas where we agree and then focus our attention fully on the RoI issue, without the island/disambiguation sideshow. waggers (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have noted before, if the purpose of the "straw poll" is to focus discussion on the remits of the taskforce - or even to help move consensus forward, then that's grand. If however, as Sarah seems to be suggesting, it's a "trigger" to block move 3 (and ultimately dozens) of pages, then that's totally inappropriate. Polls are NOT an indicator of consensus. There is a reason we have templates like {{Not a ballot}} and policies like WP:!VOTE. Because "voting" is flawed. So please Sarah don't start a "move war" by preempting a more completely formed (and CON) solution with a move that addresses only your "Wikipedia should reflect official name" concerns. (And leaves the other concerns [DAB issues/COMMONNAME conflicts/Historical usage/etc] unresolved.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Sarah should not move, and playing the "deadline" game is not a good idea. This whole debate looks pretty close to a conclusion however and I would have concerns that it being dragged out to prevent change. Maybe an admin or two should act together to finalise this? --Snowded TALK 11:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

When, Snowded, can we have an end to this? I think that the consensus (even if not unanimous) to move these three articles is clear. It doesn't satisfy everyone, but the status quo is unacceptable. We've got to move on! -- Evertype·✆ 13:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

and do you think I disagree with that? I just think Sarah should not just go and do it cause she wants to issuing deadlines. Lets some admins get involved. --Snowded TALK 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "if the purpose of the "straw poll" is to focus discussion on the remits of the taskforce - or even to help move consensus forward, then that's grand." - and that's exactly why I started the next poll - to see where consensus was regarding the first two moves, regardless of people's position on move 3. Unfortunately people aren't actually reading what it says below and are voting as if it suggests leaving Republic of Ireland where it is (as opposed to continuing the discussion on what to do with that article after resolving the first two moves, which can be done independently of moving Republic of Ireland). waggers (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

The main objections that have been raised above are around the naming of the state; nobody has objected to moving the disambiguation or island page; can we therefore see how people feel about this combination:

1. move Ireland to Ireland (island)
2. move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland
3. (leave Republic of Ireland where it is for now; a vote for this is not necessarily an endorsement of the current name)

Again, please keep it simple with a straightforward "agree", "disagree" or "abstain", with comments in a separate section. waggers (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree as proposer - waggers (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree  DDStretch  (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain Guliolopez (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with poll I haven't caught up on the latest debate, but I have to say that is a good thing to poll, IMO. Perhaps some kind of Ireland (pre-1922) might fit next to Republic of Ireland? The main thing is that we can all use 'Ireland' as a text link. Keeping ROI with using that, may be the closest to a compromise we ever get. My own main wish was always to separate state from island, so there is no awkward mixing of use. Changing ROI to 'Ireland (state)' can be another issue, as waggers says. I haven't put a full "agree" as I haven't read a lot of the above. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree: Wrong again! My whole objection is with the move of "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)". Scolaire (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree, earlier compromise is better --Snowded TALK 18:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree: My objection is with "Republic of Ireland" instead of "Ireland (state)". Previous poll is my preference and since these 3 topics are linked, a solution which ignores one of the issues is not a good idea. --HighKing (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - no changes, no tinkering! Djegan (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - nothing that leaves Ireland labeled as "Republic of Ireland" is sustainable. The solution above -

1. Move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland

2. Move Ireland to Ireland (island)

3. Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)

- appears to have clear consensus; so why this daft proposal? Is it an attempt to sabotage the consensus for change? It is totally unacceptable to launch a diversionary proposal while there is apparent consensus around the active one. Sarah777 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain - it's not clear to me what the function of this proposal is. Is it a final solution, or merely a staging post? I'm content with it as a final solution, but see no purpose in making such a proposal if it's not intended as a final solution. Mooretwin (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, a staging post? This is about moving three articles. What is it that you fear we are trying to do? -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

By staging post, I mean an interim measure, pending a change in the name of Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree - I accepted the previous proposal and prefer Ireland (state) to Republic of Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 13:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. Just like Scolaire, the whole of my objection is to the Ireland to Ireland (island) move. Currently, there are no fewer than 5 links in the top areas of the Ireland page to the state--the Ireland page already acts as a disambig. page! And it has the advantage of going directly to content, giving one maps, images, etc. to help one understand which Ireland (or specifically Northern Ireland) to read more about or link to. Nuclare (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree It is self obvious that ireland is an island, it is the state that requires a Dab, and we have one already.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with moving Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland. No opinion re where to move the article now titled Ireland. --Una Smith (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I've abstained for two reasons. (1) I'm not sure what problem is solved by the move. All it really does is redirects the subset of users who land on "Ireland" (looking for the country) who aren't already redirected by the DAB hatnote or first sentence. Though maybe a babystep here is better than none. (2) As stated before, unless these "polls" occur within the context of the broader labelling guidelines under the main taskforce TOR, then this stuff should really be discussed under an RM. Or at least linked from the talkpage of the pages concerned. Guliolopez (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This is why I am against polls. I took the trouble to make a statement where I spelled out why I believe "Ireland" must be for the whole island of Ireland. Along comes Waggers and says "nobody has objected to moving the...island page." How can we have dialogue if people aren't even bothering to read it? Scolaire (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)]

I admit I haven't read through the latest stuff.. sorry. I'll give it all a read - I suppose I should get up to scratch now I've voted on these latest proposals. I assume there have been other new approches suggested? Or major factual hurdles, besides. I will accept anything that solves the 2 huge problems I have personally encountered while editing now: One is the state/island mishmash inside 'Ireland', the other is editors' unhappiness using the full "Republic of Ireland" wording within articles. I don't hugely mind either way about the second one, personally - but people have to be happy, and I've been stuck by the fact that they are not.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments on this are pretty cogent.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whose? Mine or Matt's? Scolaire (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours. --Peter cohen (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 20:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've removed my opinon from this Taskforce. A trouble maker or possible Schizophrenic like myself, has nothing to contribute to it. PS- good luck in finding a solution, folks. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I am persuaded by the arguments made here, both for and against moving Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland, that the disambiguation page should be titled Ireland. At present, Ireland is a mash-up of articles about the island, disambiguation, and misplaced text about the state. Has anyone examined the incoming links to Ireland? Are they also a mash-up, in need of disambiguation? That chore is much easier if the page that accumulates ambiguous links is purely a disambiguation page. That way, an editor can periodically visit "what links here" and see at a glance what articles need links fixed. --Una Smith (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire's proposal

It seems to me that nearly all of the discussion here focuses on the fact that a number of editors object to (or don't want, or are prepared to ditch) "Republic of Ireland". What's being consistently missed is that an equal number of editors (wiki-wide, which is not always reflected in the task force) don't want "Ireland (island)" or "Ireland (state)". What I am proposing is, just for an exercise, that we agree not to use either "Republic of Ireland" or "Ireland (island)" and "Ireland (state)". Now, can anybody suggest a workable alternative? Scolaire (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I seem to see consensus around a workable solution above. No need for new proposals; there is a solution and there is consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may add, I'm not sure that many people object (on it's own merits) to the current Ireland article remaining where it is. It's just that these topics are linked, which is why we're trying to create a compromise on both articles. But leaving the current Ireland article where it is just leaves us trying to rename the RoI article, which has been a continuous stalemat for years resulting in the article remaining at RoI for year (and if the truth be told, a consensus does not exist for this name any longer, but a consensus for a particular choice of name change can't be found). This is the first time, I believe, where we have seen an appetite to move RoI albeit in conjunction with the Ireland article (from what I can see, in the interests of consistency across articles).

But, seeing as how you've asked for alternatives... (btw, don't cross any out but feel free to add to these choices if you think of anything)

The choices for an article at Ireland are:

• Leave as is
• A Dab Page
• An article on the state

The choices for an article about Ireland the island are (excluding above):

• Ireland (island)
• Ireland (European island)
• Ireland (British Isles)

And the choices for an article about Ireland the state are (excluding above):

• Ireland (state)
• Ireland (country)
• Ireland (republic)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 November 2008

Er, you've left out Republic of Ireland in your list of choices for Ireland the state! Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, if ROI is really the only bone of contention, how about:

• Ireland - leave as is
• ROI -> Ireland (state)
• Ireland (disambiguation) - leave as is

If that were agreed in principle, we could discuss how Ireland (state) should be dealt with in articles, so that it would satisfy both the "Ireland" purists and the "unionist" objectors. The page moves would be done after we had agreement on that. Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Lest we forget:

The vote is 13 - 5 for this proposal -

1. Move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland

2. Move Ireland to Ireland (island)

3. Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state)

A better solution by far would be

1. Move Ireland to Ireland (island)

2. Move Republic of Ireland to Ireland

But I'll go with the consensus.

Sarah777 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The vote is currently 12 - 7 i.e. less than 2:1, and falling. Never count your chickens... Scolaire (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope. There's no clear agreement that the word Ireland is used to refer to the island more than the state or vice versa. Therefore the disambiguation page should be at Ireland, per WP:D. waggers (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What if we forgot about "should" (never mind "nope"!) and actually try discussing things? Scolaire (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Sarah here, but.. Scolaire's idea;proposal here is like my original kick-off proposal (archived on the main page), but having (in this case)

• Ireland as the island, and having hatnotes like;

• For the country called Ireland (*also called Republic of Ireland), see Ireland (state) (*optional)
• For the the country called Northern Ireland, see Northern Ireland

Why have the disam page? I personally would accept it as a third choice - providing that Ireland is indeed 'non-forking' (ie only the geographical island - so people will be encouraged to follow the links).

As editors would be using "Ireland" as to mean the state, it would have to be very clear in the opening paragraphs what the situation with Ireland is, ie it would say something like "Ireland is the name of an island comprising of two countries..." Ireland was clearly split into two equal (if not in size) countries as far as I'm concerned, so maybe that needs ironing out (some people seem to half accept it, though I dont see the benefit of really arguing it - it seem not productive to me). --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt; I cannot imagine that anyone who is interested in looking specifically for NI would need help; maybe that hat-note should be on the UK page, or the Ulster page? Anyone looking for NI as distinct from Ireland or the island would go somewhere else first; "Ulster", "UK" or "NI" all being more likely.Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there has for some months been a growing consensus that the way forward is to remove the controversial ROI label, but to respect the concern that Ireland (the island) should not be confused with Ireland (the state or whatever). Whenever this comes up we get all the normal arguments and multiple proposals and discussions threads in effect creates a filibuster. I think we should keep this really simple - namely a disambiguation page and two new names for the island and the state. If someone can come up with an alternative to (state) I am more than open. However I think that is the only real debate left. Other than that I think this one is ready to go. --Snowded TALK 09:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you~re right. Of course, the above would actually work with "(also called the Rebulic of Ireland)" removed from it, if it~s a compromise too far. Perhaps it could be come back to, if it~s needed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Snow, I think what we have had for at least two years amounts to one long filibuster. That's why I proposed cutting this short and implementing the obvious consensus in favour of WP:COMMONNAME. But, as you can see I have stayed my hand. For now. Re "counting chickens" the verdict is in - RoI is not consistent with policy; only the details remain - 2 days or another 2 years - only a detail. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy, guidelines, consensus...

Ok, let's start from first principles: Wikipedia's naming policy. It's called Wikipedia:Naming conventions but it is policy (as distinct from a guideline) as you'll see when you visit the page. As such, it should normally be followed by all editors. Yes, that includes you. It says to use the most recognised name. For both the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland, that name is Ireland. The policy says quite clearly, "Do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings." "Ireland" is ambiguous, therefore Ireland should be a disambiguation page. The policy tells us how to handle disambiguation by pointing to the WP:D guidelines, which of course concord with the policy: Ireland should be a disambiguation page.

DDstretch pointed all this out three weeks ago, yet for some reason we continued discussions as though we, as a group of editors, had a need to ignore the official policy of Wikipedia and go our own way. Over the last few days a poll was conducted, which included the notion of making Ireland a disambiguation page, and it achieved wide support. Naturally there were a few who disagreed but there is a fairly clear consensus. So with the policy, guidelines and our own poll all saying the same thing, it seems there is absolutely no reason why the disambiguation page cannot be moved to Ireland. It's what the policy says, it's what the guidelines say, we've discussed it to death and still come up with the same conclusion. So that's done and dusted.

All that remains is to agree on the naming of the island and state articles. Because the island article currently resides where the disambiguation page should go, I would suggest that that's the most pressing concern, but I've no objection to looking at alternative names for the current Republic of Ireland article at the same time as there seems to be some reluctance in discussions above for this task force to concentrate on one issue at a time. So let's do it. In the sections below, please add:

* '''Your preferred article title''' [optional SHORT comment] ~~~~

and remember that Ireland is not an option as that's where the disambiguation page is going to go! Come on, let's make some progress here. waggers (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I concur entirely with this summary.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Good summary even if from my perspective it is merely a statement of the "bleedin' obvious" to quote Basil. I'd argue that current usage suggests that the primacy of Ireland to refer to the political country is now so widespread as to make it sufficient that "The island of Ireland" be a hat-note; but that is for future consideration. In the happy event that the good folk of NI decide to unite with the country of Ireland than there will be no further need for disambiguation. Sarah777 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Preferred name of the island article

• Ireland (island) - no strong view, just seems logical and accords with the guidelines. waggers (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland - I don't see how this cannot be the primary meaning of the word Ireland. The Southern Irish state has only existed for less than a century, yet the island has existed for millennia, and continues to exist today. The island continues today not merely as a geographic entity, but as a cultural and sporting entity. Mooretwin (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that the terms "Southern Ireland" and "Southern Irish state" really annoy people who live here? -- Evertype·✆ 14:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose using either in WP. You, on the other hand, propose using "Ireland" to mean the 26-county state, which really annoys people living in the other part of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I just chip in with my two cents? Whether a term annoys someone is irrelevant. That is POV. If something is factually correct and verifiable then it should be used.Yman88 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Except when disambiguation is necessary. Mooretwin (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but from my understanding disambiguation won't be needed that often. I think it was you who mentioned somewhere that the Constitution of Ireland needed disambiguation! It clearly doesn't islands have nothing to do governements. The same applies to many other cases where there's no reason why it would be the island thats being talked about so Ireland clearly means the state. Anyway all I wanted to do was give my opinion; there are other editors here better than me at sorting problems out.Yman88 (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So you accept that the "official name" should not be used where disambiguation is necessary. You merely dispute the frequency of the need for disambiguation. Mooretwin (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In a way yes. Imo Roi would be needed only just in NI articles where Ireland had already established to mean the island. ie a very small number of articles. The rest should conform to the internationally accepted and NPOV "official name" if you want to put it like that.Yman88 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then we are not too far apart. Any articles relating to Northern Ireland, or the island as a whole require disambiguation, and ROI is a perfectly reasonable disambiguator (indeed, it is the obvious one). We'll agree to disagree on Constitution of Ireland, since it is not safe to assume that the reader knows that "Ireland" (the state) and Ireland (the island) are different. Mooretwin (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ireland but prepared to compromise if ti's the only way to put this to an end.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (island) probably of the two - but it hardly matters in my own view. The main thing is having a non-mixed island article, and a state article where can people can agree on its name/what term directs to it. I'll go for any of above 3 proprosals (Evertype/waggers/Scolaire). IMO, it is clear that the status quo has to change, but few compromises are coming from those who wan't to keep it. Is it beholden on those who want change, to keep carrying on seeking compromise? Having had so much debate now, it seems to me that we either have to move with the Evertype proposal in some way (maybe move it as it stands to somewhere new, and advertise it with a closing date), or seriously look at Scolaire's compromise, which seems to me the biggest compromise. If Scolaire's is backed enough, they could even be re-polled as a choice, side by side. It they are polled with the status quo (with no multiple voting allowed), we would all of us have to accept the outcome. It would be up to people to back Scolaire's proposal though, as the Evertype proposal is clearly strong enough to not be disbanded this time (and we just drop them forever). --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (island) without question. It is unambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 14:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (island) as it is the most correct choice. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (island) in line with the most obvious advice given in WP:DISAM.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (island) easiest ClemMcGann (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (island)Yman88 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (island) --Snowded TALK 19:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland, and I deeply resent the continued imposition of polls in lieu of discussion, and even more the implication that it's a matter of law enforcement. --Scolaire (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I could have missed something over the last year, but discussion does not seem to have been absent --Snowded TALK 09:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No shortage of invective, certainly, but rational discussion? Heaven forbid! I had a proposal on the table, but instead of kicking it around we've launched straight into another poll, to allow everybody express their old prejudices yet again! Scolaire (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ireland for "Island + State". Northern Ireland for what is a small breakaway territory. Purple_A (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (island) is the best option. Sarah777 (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Preferred name of the state article

• Ireland (state)- no strong view, just seems logical and consistent, and accords with the guidelines. waggers (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Republic of Ireland - the obvious alternative to Ireland, which is a misnomer. Prepared to accept Ireland (state) in return for Republic of Ireland remaining as the disambiguator in article texts where a disambiguator is necessary. Mooretwin (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see disambiguation will rarely be necessary, if it is then a pipelink is the obvious way to make the point. If that really doesn't work then the Irish republic might work better. --Snowded TALK 09:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it will be necessary, unless you are going to use "Ireland (state)" in the middle of prose. You propose "Irish republic" instead of "Republic of Ireland" - why? This determination to purge a perfectly reasonable, legitimate and statutory term is getting out of hand. I've offered a compromise but you won't accept anything that doesn't involve a complete purge of the term. Mooretwin (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin please calm down. Most of the time if we use Ireland it will be very clear if it is the island or the state. A pipelink is the best way to clear up any doubt. You are in effect proposing that we change the name of the article, but then use your preferred name every time it is referenced! You are also fully aware of the arguments that ROI is not a legitimate name so I am not going to repeat them. --Snowded TALK 10:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is optimistic to suggest that "most of the time" it will be clear whether "Ireland" means the island or the state. But, even if so, disambiguation will still be required for those minority of times when it is not clear. I am not proposing that we use Republic of Ireland every time it is referenced - only those times when "a disambiguator is necessary", e.g. in articles relating to the whole island or to Northern Ireland. I am, indeed, aware of the arguments that ROI is not legitimate. Those arguments, however, are very weak - I would say verging on irrational. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Irish republic It avoids implication that "Republic of Ireland" is an official name - as article names begin with upper case letters, we can't have "republic of Ireland". Next choice Republic of Ireland - as it can be used in text. Next choice Ireland (state). No to simple "Ireland" because the island, is the main usage whetehr talking about geography or history or culture.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state) because "Republic of Ireland" has been contentious and will remain so. "Ireland (state)" is unambigious. -- Evertype·✆ 14:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state): RoI just *has* to go, although I would also accept "Ireland (Republic)". --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state) first, or Ireland, or Republic of Ireland, or any other variant depending on the route taken. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state) in line with obvious recommendations given in WP:DISAM and paying attention to people's preferences of "state" over "country" in this context.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state) now let there be peace ClemMcGann (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state)Yman88 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state) --Snowded TALK 19:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state) (Ireland republic and Irish Republic far too ambiguous). RashersTierney (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous?? Mooretwin (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Whats the question? RashersTierney (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain, and see my comment above about the imposition of polls in lieu of discussion. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Republic of Ireland - the alternative of Ireland (state) is a disaster. Djegan (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Disaster? Naah, you just don't prefer it. Georgia (country) isn't a "disaster". -- Evertype·✆ 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Only a disaster for those who have invested their Wiki-heart and soul in maintaining the current POV version of the title of the article about Ireland! And who confidently predicted that any attempt to establish WP:NPOV would fail. Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Time to move on then. -- Evertype·✆ 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ireland for "Island + State". Northern Ireland for what is a small breakaway territory. Purple_A (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Ireland (state) as Ireland (country) rightly includes nearly half the population in NI and isn't, sadly, coordinate with the state - at least yet. Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep the politics out of this? You are talking about subjugating a people in an area that has been British and protestant for over 200 years. They may only be a 60% majority in Northern Ireland, but half of them go as far as to say they feel "not at all Irish", and in the face of all the island, the are a minority who clearly feel threatened. If we allowed everyone in the world revenge for that length of time, half of the world's countries would vanish. All it does is wind up many of the poeple who are worried about losing the status quo on Ireland - and I can't blame them for getting pissed off by it.-Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Matt? I'm not talking about subjugating anyone! Where have I suggested that? Are you saying that the happy day when NI people vote democratically to become part of Ireland would be "subjugation"? And then I'd guess you'd claim the current situation isn't subjugation? Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

After that length of time? And with the NI assembly? No I do not think Northern Ireland is Ireland under British control. It is British, and I've shared my taxes with it. There were certainly problems in areas where Catholics did suffer prejudice (mainly because of the Protestant fear I aluded to above, and it happens all over the world) - but they there is a power-shared national assembly now. There was always going to be some residual fighting (and no animosity or prejudice vanishes over night) - but none of what flares up now is publically supported, like it was in the late 20c. The IRA have disarmed - and the public support for it was nothing for anyone to be proud of. As NI gets prosperous again (as it should be), there is no reason to say that the protestants won't increase in population as much as the Catholics have done. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your point is? Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a task force

I've been attempting to find out how it is intended that the task force will complete its work and arrive at a solution, but my questions keep being ignored. Hence I'm starting this separate discussion. The term "RM" keeps being mentioned - what is this?

Could someone please explain - is voting the method of reaching a conclusion, or is the task force supposed to result in some kind of third-party objective intervention, where the merits of the arguments will be weighed up, rather than a simple headcount? Mooretwin (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RM (I've also explained it it more detail above) and WP:Taskforce. I'm sure they'll raise more questions, but they should be enough to get you started with the basics. waggers (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Waggers. The Task Force page doesn’t really explain how it comes to any conclusions. Perhaps it is not the best way to deal with a contentious issues such as this, where consensus is not likely to be achieved. Mooretwin (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep - to be honest, I don't think this really is a task force in the Wikipedia sense. It's more a centralised discussion, as the scope is wider than the talk page of any one article. waggers (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, any voting on this should not be straight yes or no, but by preference. Mooretwin (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're to get anywhere, eventually we need to narrow things down to one winning option - but as you've seen above, I've started a "by preference" vote (in which you chose the one preference that goes against policy and consensus, despite the briefing at the top making things absolutely crystal clear, but hey, you can lead a horse to water...) waggers (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting by preference (1, 2, 3) results in a winning option just like voting by yes/no. Mooretwin (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Scope of taskforce

The original principal motivation for setting up this "taskforce" seems to have been the manner of referring to the state and island within articles. However, the discussion seems to have drifted inexorably back to the names of the two main articles.

I would like to broaden the discussion again. As I see it, there are a number of issues:

1. Names of the 2 Ireland articles
2. Names of other articles and categories which incorporate the names of one of the 2 Irelands
3. How to refer to the 2 Irelands within other articles

Names of the 2 Ireland articles

To me this is the least important element, despite all the talk. We have a Names of the Irish state article which is quite good. It can always be improved and should form a major source of the factual data on which the debates here will rely, rather than different editors here making sometimes contradictory assertions.

It is always better to say things explicitly in the content rather than to imply them from the structure or layout. I don't care what the article about the state is called as long as it makes clear to the uninformed reader what the state is called.

I don't want to dispute or rehash the same points others have made. A few points I have not seen made:

• Ambiguity in practice:
  • Lots of people outside the island of Ireland who use the word "Ireland" may not be aware of whether they are referring to the island or the state; they may not appreciate that the two are not synonymous in the way that Iceland or Cuba can refer both to an island and a state.
  • When a citizen of the Republic of Ireland is abroad and people ask where they are from, they will normally say "Ireland" (rather than "Republic of Ireland" or the like). Sometimes the foreigner will ask something like "North or South?" For the citizen, this is annoying; but why? Imagine, for the sake of contrast, asking an American who says they're from Virginia "West or East?" Clearly that question would be an ignorant blunder; the "North or South" question is not so. To my mind, the original answer "Ireland" is ambiguous not only to the listener but also to the speaker.
  • At the 2008 Ryder Cup, Nick Faldo asked Graeme McDowell "Are you from Ireland or Northern Ireland?" This attracted a variety of comments in the media which may be useful datapoints for our discussions.
• Practical matters of plumbing:
  • Moving the state from Republic of Ireland will not create problems since that will still redirect to the new name
  • Moving the island from Ireland will create problems:
    • Making Ireland the state page will instantly make lots of links point to the incorrect page. This would need a huge amount of repair work to be done quickly.
    • Making Ireland a disambiguation page will make lots of links point to the disambiguation page. This would equally need to be fixed, but would not be as urgent since the link would be inconvenient rather than incorrect.
      • One advantage of having the default name as a disambiguation is that it eliminates the possibilities of mistaken wikilinking. Has anyone done any survey of Special:WhatLinksHere/Ireland to estimate what proportion ought to be linking to Republic of Ireland?

Names of other articles and categories which incorporate the names of one of the 2 Irelands

As Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force/cross-usage table shows, this is currently a mess of inconsistencies and anomalies.

If it is decided the article Republic of Ireland is renamed Ireland or Ireland (state), it does not follow that Demographics of the Republic of Ireland or Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland should move in parallel. Do those who dislike the use of "Republic of Ireland" in the main-article title also dislike it in the other article and category titles where it occurs? If so, do they propose such articles and categories undergoing a similar change of name, or a different change or name, to resolve this?

There are a fair number of articles with titles "Foo of Ireland" which are disambiguations linking to "Foo of the Republic of Ireland" and "Foo of Northern Ireland". This is appropriate in some cases (including some where it's not currently done) and not in others (including some where it is currently done).

There are a fair number of categories "Category:Foo of Ireland" with subcategories "Category:Foo of the Republic of Ireland" and "Category:Foo of Northern Ireland". Some of these have a lot of articles in the parent Category that should be moved to the subcategory. Of course, many articles will rightly belong in the parent category. Other overlapping-jurisdiction articles might better be put in both subcategories.

How to refer to the 2 Irelands within other articles

It's obvious that a wikilink should be to the island article when the island is being referred to and to the state when the state is being referred to.

In historical contexts, Kingdom of Ireland or Lordship of Ireland are, in theory, possible alternatives (e.g. "In the 1570s Edmund Spenser went to Ireland"), but in practice this is not done, and I think rightly so: those articles are specifically political-history rather than more general history.

There are three issues here:

Which article to link to

Should towns, or rivers, be described as being in the state or the island? Should people born prior to independence but achieving prominence after it be described as from the state or from the island? Should people born in Northern Ireland but moving south at an early age and achieving prominence there be described as from the state or from the island?

How to disambiguate

When explicit text is required, what wordings should be used?

• For the island "island of Ireland" is pretty uncontentious in geographical contexts.
  • In political contexts, terms are contentious. See the current debate at Flag of the island of Ireland.
• "Republic of Ireland" is contentious for some, and terms like "the state of Ireland" or "the state named Ireland" are inelegant to others.
  • What about adjectives: when "Irish X" is ambiguous, do we say "Republic of Ireland X", "X of the Republic of Ireland", etc?
  • Is "Republic of Ireland" acceptable for references which include time prior to Republic of Ireland Act in force in 1949?
  • Is "Ireland"/"Republic of Ireland" acceptable for references which include the time of the Irish Free State

When to disambiguate

• When is acceptable to allow "Easter egg" disambiguations [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] / [[Ireland (island)|Ireland]] / [[Republic of Ireland|Irish]] / etc, with no text on the source article to make state-not-island/island-not-state explicit?
  • For example, in a list of states, or template-box, where "Ireland" is one of the items listed, it should be obvious that this means the state, not the island.
• If something relates to the state, and hence also to the island, when is it acceptable or even preferable not to bother resolving the irrelevant ambiguity?
  • Current trends in WP:OVERLINK are to reduce the number links, so in many articles where the word "Ireland" occurs, it may not need to be wikilinked at all anywhere in the article.

jnestorius^(talk) 02:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly true that either 'Ireland' or 'Ireland (state)' can better cover all the names it has been called (for whatever reason) - Ireland, Southern Ireland, Irish Free State, Republic of Ireland, Eire etc. Republic of Ireland (actually named in 1949, although 'Ireland' has been written back in again since - which is another thing to put in the mix) is obviously less ideal. Having said that, I'm sure there are examples on Wikipedia where the equivalent of ROI happens - However, we simply have to have an island article that makes it as clear as it possibly can that it is not a state article. That's the rub, and ROI has been more of a way of patching up that problem than the ideal name for the state article (and many people I have discussed it with have pretty much said that - esp admin who have voted for the status quo in the 6-monthly polls). We need to sort it all out. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we do. Because the "RoI" name is totally contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV and WP:COMMON and has only been sustained by the weight of British POV (in my opinion). Try as I might to WP:AGF my patience is being stretched by this interminable filibuster. Time to call a halt. Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)