Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:IWNB)
Jump to: navigation, search

Irish Wikipedians' notice board

Home

Irish Wikipedians' related news

Discussion

Ireland related discussion (at WikiProject Ireland).

Active Users

Active Irish Users

WikiProjects

Irish WikiProjects

Stubs

Major Irish stubs

Peer review

Articles on Peer review

FA

Articles on FA review

FA Drive

Articles under consideration for FA drive

Irish articles assessed by quality
Featured article FA  A-Class article A   GA  B-Class article B  C-Class article C  Start-Class article Start  Stub-Class article Stub  Featured list FL   List  Category page Category  Disambiguation page Disambig   Draft   File   Portal   Project   Template   NA   ???  Total
33 0 121 903 1,474 15,277 15,972 4 2,068 9,236 141 6 51 3 1 1,177 547 3 47,011
Shortcuts:

Prisons in Ireland / Republic of Ireland[edit]

User:Gob Lofa is disruptively editing Prisons in Ireland, meaning there are now 2 almost identical articles; see Prisons in the Republic of Ireland. Prisons in Ireland was recently moved by another editor to Prisons in the Republic of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So restore Prisons in Ireland and delete Prisons in the Republic of Ireland or alternatively have Prisons in the Republic of Ireland and Prisons in Northern Ireland  ??? ----Snowded TALK 13:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Prisons in Ireland should be either a disambiguation page or an overview. Prisons in foo are the common articles and are based on jurisdictions and sovereign entities like Prisons in Russia. Prisons in NI should be covered in Prisons in the United Kingdom which is a redirect to Her Majesty's Prison Service, which brings on a second point. Gob Lofa, is insisting using Irish in the lead of the Irish Prison Service article and linkng as per WP:IRE-IRL is incorrect "Avoid pipe, not all Irish prisons, restore link.This discussion covers catergories as does this. Murry1975 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not insisting it's incorrect, I'm insisting it be qualified, as not all Irish prisons are in the ROI. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Districts of Northern Ireland[edit]

Category talk:Districts of Northern Ireland on splitting pre-2015 and current districts jnestorius(talk) 13:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Mass deletion of info box images[edit]

I notice that, without any discussion on the relevant talk pages, a decision was taken to remove galleries from info-boxes [1]. So, Talk:Irish migration to Great Britain#Image in infobox can discuss and agree content, only to have it all deleted. I consider the gallery in History of the Jews in Ireland nicely illustrated how great their contribution compared with their numbers. It is curious that these deletions only affect "ethnic" articles, such as Irish Argentine, Scotch-Irish Americans, Irish Chilean Irish Australians etc Irish-***. Other galleries are ok, such as: List of converts to Christianity from Islam. What do you think? - Lugnad (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can fully understand and sympathise with your frustration that years of work on an article can be undone because of a discussion on a page that you weren't even aware of. Having said that, I've had a look at the discussion and I feel that it was above board and the decision was a good one. The question of properly advertising the discussion was touched on, and it was pointed out that it would not be feasible to put a notice on the talk page of every affected article. That WikiProject was the only logical place to centralise discussion, and it seems that it was also advertised at WP:CENT. There was a lot of input into the discussion; it wasn't just a small group of like-minded editors taking it upon themselves to dictate to the rest of the community. There was a clear consensus to delete, and a clear rationale for doing so: "that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people." This is well illustrated by one of the examples you gave: History of the Jews in Ireland (version with gallery). I personally think it was laughable to have Daniel Day-Lewis in there. His mother may have been Jewish, but that doesn't in any way make him part of the history of Jews in Ireland. By the way, the closing statement also said that the decision "also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups...because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well." There is no reason why this could not also apply to List of converts to Christianity from Islam. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Gaelic-Irish nations and dynasties[edit]

Surely this category could be simplified into two, distinct categories? Namely, Irish nations, and Gaelic-Irish dynasties? The former were earlier historic folk whose name ended in -raige. The latter were groups prefixed as Ui. By the way, I note that Template:Campaignbox Irish-Norman wars does not seem to have been edited as proposed. Anyone? Fergananim (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Ring, County Waterford[edit]

There is currently a Requested Move discussion re the article on Ring/An Rinn, County Waterford, which you may wish to contribite to. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Troubles[edit]

Some fresh eyes would be welcome at this discussion at Talk:The Troubles. The edits under discussion are consolidated in this edit to the article. Scolaire (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Polity[edit]

I find polity a useful neutral term, but I'm coming across some opposition to its use. Thoughts? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Some opposition" means everyone else but you. "Thoughts" would be to stop using it, as there is no consensus for it. Open an RfC and be done with it. Snappy (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not very helpful. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Why wouldn't an RfC be helpful? Anyway, the polity article is one badly written and badly sourced paragraph. Polity is another word for state. Just use the word 'state' and stop your whinging. Snappy (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Rarely has an editor chosen a more apt name for himself. For how long will such rudeness go unpunished? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Polity is more than a word for state; it also covers sub-state bodies, e.g. the constituent countries of the UK. This makes it useful for describing the political entities in Ireland accurately and neutrally, issues we've had problems with in the past. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"for describing the political entities in Ireland accurately and neutrally", one is a sovereign state one is a bit harder to explain, and using the word polity with it would require further explanation. This added to the fact that the polity definition for NI has changed since the start of its existence, the 1922 polity differs from the 1973 polity and again for the modern polity, makes using the word, well non-encyclopedic. The only place I could see it being used is on the NI page itself, as in various ways of describing NI and that would need a be sourced and cited. Murry1975 (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't make a lot of sense, Murry. They're both polities, including the ROI. The UK and ROI are different kinds of states; do you feel the need to spell out their differences every time they're mentioned? What exactly do you mean by 'non-encyclopedic'? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In your reply you have just proved why we should not use the word polity. Time to close and move on. Murry1975 (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That makes even less sense. I can't think of any better collective term for the political entities created by the partition of Ireland; can you? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't sound to me like a good choice of words for straightforward description. Have you a reasonable secondary source that uses it in this context? Seeing it like that might get me to like it better. Otherwise if there is no good source and people opposed to it, well it just would be wrong to put it in. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
By context, do you mean to refer to both political entities? Why do you say it's not a good choice when there are no comparable alternatives? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's sources for: ROI - [2], [3], NI - [4], [5], [6], [7], ROI + UK - [8], ROI + NI - [9] Gob Lofa (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources are one thing, but is there consensus among editors to use this term. Hence, the suggestion that you should open a Request for Consensus in the appropriate place. Snappy (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not so much concerned about editors using the term as with them attempting to prevent me using it. If you believe's it's inappropriate of me to raise an Ireland-related issue here, please start a new section for that discussion. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand. "...them attempting to prevent me using it" - this would be the no consensus for using this term. If you continue to push this term without consensus, then it will continue to be reverted. Feel free to start your own RfC. Snappy (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If there's a total ban on the use of this term despite it having its own article, please point me toward where this consensus developed. I'm advocating the use of the term with my arguments here; please don't characterise that as "pushing" "without consensus". You'd do better to take Laurel's admonishment on board. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, 'polity' gets used. Rarely, usually in academic articles, possibly government circles. That doesn't make it a more appropriate term to use than 'state', which requires no explanation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
An excellent argument, except when we refer to political entities that aren't states. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You still don't get it, do you? You are proposing to use this term. No-one currently agrees with you, therefore you have to get consensus to use it on Wikipedia. Until you get that consensus, it can't be used. P.S Laurel Lodged is an numpty, Snappy is short for Snappy Dresser! Snappy (talk)
A less than excellent argument. Ought we delete the Polity article? By your logic, the editors who wrote it don't agree with its use. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We need an article on the term as we are an encyclopedia, but the fact the word exists does not mean it has to be used. This has been discussed and todate there is no support for its use as it is not a common word and would require explanation which will not help people on the article concerned. Otherwise Snappy I suggest not responding to Gob Lofa in kind it doesn't help. Gob Lofa its good that you brought it here rather than continuing attempts to insert the term in articles against consensus. But you should really place a notice on the article where the discussion took place so other editors are aware. ----Snowded TALK 05:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks like a term that is used in sources. It however strikes me as a rather nondescript term, if one looks on google then it seems to be used in some churches more as in ecclesiastical polity. So I guess this is a use by use question rather than a general one. I'd avoid it if there is a common more descriptive term which can be used. That has to be better than saying what seems to be the equivalent of thingamajig social-political group. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, Dmcq. Does anyone have a suitable synonym? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes: state.[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Scolaire (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Are we to describe all sub-state bodies as states now? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we have to do anything. You asked for a suitable synonym. I gave you one that is used in reliable sources and accepted by the Wikipedia community. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't ask did we have to. I asked is it acceptable to refer to sub-state polities, e.g. NI and Scotland, as states. If this is accepted as you say, can you show us where? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Put whatever spin on it you like. I am not concerned with Scotland. It is accepted explicitly as a term for NI by Snappy and Bastun, above, and now by me, and implicitly by everybody else who opposes "polity", i.e. everybody in this discussion but you. Do not demand any more answers to tangential questions from me. It is uncivil and disruptive, and I won't be drawn. Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You mistake my tone; to ask a question is not to demand an answer. I'm concerned that referring to NI as a state implies independence, a wrong-footing that would take a bit more explanation to correct than a simple, linked polity. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
States need not be independent. That's why people talk about independent states or sovereign states. It is a bit of a problem how to refer to Northern Ireland without someone complaining about terminology. Using another uncommon term though strikes me as bordering on [19]. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
For states in the European context, and particularly the British/Irish one, that's not the case. The term isn't that uncommon (I read it in the newspaper last week) and neatly dodges the main bugbear of NI terminology, that of neutrality. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fianna Fail[edit]

There is an edit dispute on the Fianna Fáil article on the issue as to if the lead is biased in favor or non biased as it is using the political party´s own sources, as well as cluttered, in my opinion the tone is certainly not impartial. Would appreciate some input, as there appears to be no consensus for the addition or removal. Discussion can be found here at the end Talk:Fianna Fáil#Lead Tyrsóg (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Provinces[edit]

Hi. I would be interested to hear other interested editors' thoughts on what the province articles (Munster, Leinster, etc) should be "about".

From my perspective, these articles should cover topics that are specifically associated with the titular subject.

For example, certain sporting organisations (notably rugby union, the GAA and perhaps association football) organise themselves on a provincial basis - hence it possibly makes sense for the province articles to reflect this.

In a similar vein, in a historical and geopolitical context, it makes sense to me that (for example) the Leinster article has a history section that reflects a geo-political cohesion (for example drawing together the Laighin peoples, Kingdom of Leinster, the concept of The Pale, etc). And other historical content that is specifically relevant to a discussion on the province.

I can equally understand the value in dealing with provincial variances of language (like Munster Irish, Ulster Irish, etc) in the encompassing regional article - as per WP:SS.

And I can make peace with the "lists of media outlets" in some of the provincial articles - given that at least some of the regional media outlets organise and market themselves on a provincial basis.

What I am struggling with however are some of the more random and WP:INDISCRIMINATE tables and lists in some of the articles. For example, the Munster article has a LARGE table of wind farms in Munster. Why? Are wind farms organised or managed on a provincial basis? If not, then why are we arranging them on that basis on this project? It wouldn't seem to be in keeping with relevant guidelines on scope, context and reflecting the real world.

Similarly the Leinster article has a (random?) list of "Cultural Venues". Leaving aside the lack of any clear inclusion criteria or cites, what value or relevance does this have do we think? We might as well have a list of cathedrals in Leinster? (Such a thing might even make slightly more sense - given that the dioceses loosely follow the provincial borders). But venues? Other than in the Leinster article, where ever have the 3Arena, Navan Arts Centre and Lambert Puppet Theatre ever appeared together? The WP:LISTN guidelines suggest that list contents should be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". If nobody else is bundling the 3Arena with the Navan Arts Centre, then why are we?

Would love to hear other thoughts before I take a stab at hopefully decluttering some of the random/indiscriminate "lists of stuff that just happens to be in Leinster" and which has very little context under the titular provincial subjects. </end of rant> Guliolopez (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That stuff was all added recently by a single user over the course of a month in the case of Munster, and a couple of days in the case of Leinster. I would agree with reverting the whole lot. As you say, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It would be polite to put a note on the article talk pages to explain your reverts. Scolaire (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It's sufficient that such things appear in the relevant county. Pretending that a supra-county entity exists is just wrong. While we have Eurostat regions, they don't involve themselves in such matters. If they did, that that would be the home for them, not the provinces. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The provinces should contain the relevant information both historical and modern, but I do lean to Laurel Lodgeds view that the provinces are comparably out date in terms of referencing and the way information is given. As for the editor, they tend to use adverts and promotional material as sources, some of the other links I have tried to follow are incorrect urls. Some of the edits are odd and totally incorrect. Murry1975 (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
OK. As not all parties will have seen this discussion, I will open a thread on each relevant article before (possibly in turn) addressing some of the points raised. Guliolopez (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Election opinion polls[edit]

Please see Talk:Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016 - at present FG, FF, SF, Labour, Greens and PBP/AAA are being included. All of the major national opinion polls include the latter in with "Independents/Other". Should we do the same, or alternatively, should we also break out Renua, Social Democrats and Workers Party to their own columns. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Geography of Ireland[edit]

There is a proposal to split off most of the Geology of Ireland into its own article. Actually someone already moved it all and then replaced it but left the split off sitting there. The main article requires a decent synopsis because decimating that section might put its featured article status in question. So maybe you can assist in making sure this works out well. ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Irish Prison Service[edit]

Could use a fresh pair of eyes here. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)