Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Historic institutions

I'm raising this issue here as it doesn't appear to be explicitly addressed at IMOS. For institutions that existed under the Union, is 'country' or 'sovereign state' intended per this edit, also this and this. The former has been my understanding, so 'Ireland' rather than 'UK' would be usual. RashersTierney (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole concept of 'country' or 'sovereign state' is a very recent fetish, and very largely confined to Wikipedia. There were any number of 19th-century books, written by people of every point of view, that had no problem with referring to Ireland as a 'country'. Therefore, when 'country' appears in an infobox, Ireland is the country. Those edits are just the usual POV-pushing by some digruntled unionist. Feel free to revert. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Insisting on the UK is taking it a little far in instances like this. Also Ireland wasn't a province. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Ireland, while part of the United Kingdom, should be treated no different to England (e.g. University of Cambridge) or Scotland (e.g. University of Edinburgh). Typically, England/Ireland/Scotland/Wales is given as the "country" (and "United Kingdom" is left out). --Tóraí (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup, that's the unofficial rule. No reason Ireland, as a constituent country of the UK as it was then, should be treated differently. Canterbury Tail talk 19:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Slightly oblique to current issue, but isn't there a MOS guideline about deprecation of 'UK' at infoboxes (use 'country' as highest geographical entity, or some such wording). I'm sure I recall something on that line but can't think where. RashersTierney (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The main problem with the reason that because England/Scotland/Wales are used for that time then Ireland should be also is that the "country" that was Ireland then no longer exists whilst E/S/W still do (debatable as to when Wales became an entity again). Is it not odd that we link to a country for E/S/W but link to an island for I?

If anything we could link to the Ireland#Union_with_Great_Britain section of the article? Though it leaves a lot to be desired on information on Ireland at that time. Mabuska (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it is true that the country (that was then) called Ireland has ceased to exist. It continues to field teams at sporting events. It continues to be the organisation unit for religions. It continues to be described as a destination on travel guides. My 2¢ is that, just like England and Scotland, the best place to link for Ireland is (would you believe) Ireland.
Is that not where we would link if all of the place was still part of the union? And linking to an article ostensibly about an island is no more odd than linking to Iceland for Iceland. Ireland – then and now – is an island after all. Alternatively, and more in line with the MOS, we shouldn't link at all. --Tóraí (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point on the Iceland comparison, however the Ireland of then no longer exists fact regardless of the anachronistic setup still used by some organisations and travel guides are advertising an island not a country, just like Caribbean Cruises advertises cruises in the Caribbean - not an actual country.
The point of using the historical state at time is nothing new on Wikipedia. J. R. R. Tolkiens infobox states that he was born in the Orange Free State, not South Africa, and it's Wikilinked. Rudyard Kipling is linked to British India, not India. Jan Smuts is listed as being born in Cape Colony and dying in South Africa. Davy Crockett is listed as "Greene County, Tennessee (then in the State of Franklin)" and having died in "Republic of Texas". Why are these not simply linked to South Africa, India, Texas, Tennessee etc. There are many more examples on Wikipedia.
What I'm trying to point out is that the excuse for using the island has major flaws in it and that WP:OVERLINK is a weak argument always put out by the same editors for not linking Briitsh Ireland to something more applicable. Obviously with that IPs edits and the fact another IP editor raised it above (an issue not raised for the first time) shows that it is an issue, and it's a recurring issue. Obviously linking to an article to something that states Ireland as British straight off or having "Ireland, UK" in the lede or infobox is a massive no for some editors here, but it's an uncomfortable truth issue that should not be swept away with the same old tired reasons. Mabuska (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
And to counter Scolaire when they said this: "Those edits are just the usual POV-pushing by some digruntled unionist. Feel free to revert." - is it not POV-pushing by nationalist editors always objecting to something that puts the British into a mention of Ireland? Seems like everytime this issue is raised it's only disgruntled nationalists who want to keep the status quo. Funny that. Disgrunts on both sides :-D Mabuska (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, the "Ireland of then" very definitely still exists. I've been to the Glens of Antrim, to Donegal, to West Cork, to Rosslare and to many places inland, and I can vouch that they're all still there. Secondly, Caribbean is an article, regardless of whether it is an "actual country". It's the idea of "it's not all under British rule, therefore it doesn't exist" that I can't get my head around. What I said in my first post was that the whole concept of 'country' or 'sovereign state' is a very recent fetish, and very largely confined to Wikipedia. I stand by that position. I want to keep the status quo because it's based on common sense, not some pedantic notion of 'sovereignty'. The organisations and travel guides that talk about Ireland as a country are talking common sense, and I don't see any criticism or condemnation of them from politicians or academics anywhere. Plus you might have noticed where I said that nineteenth-century writers routinely spoke of Ireland as a country. The only person I can think of that called it a province was Thomas Davis, in A Nation Once Again. That's why I object to people making UK-centric changes on pseudo-legalistic grounds, without any regard to real-world usage. Scolaire (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have thought Ireland piped to History of Ireland (1801–1923) would be a reasonable link. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The point of WP:OVERLINK is not to link well-known places at all. Linking to "Ireland" is deprecated. Piping to UKGBI is overkill. Piping a place to a history article makes no sense whatsoever. Scolaire (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
With respect, Scolaire, I think your curt tone is unhelpful. IMO, the first question is, what should the text read? After that, the question of what if anything it should link to can be considered.Personally I dislike the WP:OVERLINK rule as it requires a judgment-call about whether something is sufficiently wekk-known not to need wikilinking; I would prefer linking to all proper nouns, but I can't have my own way. Apparently the editors of the infoboxes mentioned by Mabuska feel the relevant places are sufficiently obscure or non-intuitive to need a link. (Aside: There seems to be a distinction in practice between infoboxes and running text.) If we simply say "born in Ireland", then [[Ireland]] violates WP:OVERLINK and [[anything else|Ireland]] violates WP:EASTEREGG. OTOH, if we say, "born in Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom", IMO the fact that Ireland was then part of the United Kingdom is not sufficiently well known and therefore a link to a relevant article will be helpful to a lot or readers. What article, and what form of link, are consequent questions. One might have "Ireland, [[linkedArticle|then part of]] the United Kingdom" where linkedArticle is History of Ireland (1801–1923), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or whatever. The question of whether "then part of the United Kingdom" is appropriate cannot be addressed by comparison with England, Scotland and Wales, which are still part of that state; look instead at e.g. Iceland, Norway, Finland, Poland, East Germany, Yugoslavia, etc. jnestorius(talk) 11:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, your lengthy response certainly made up for my curtness ;-) The kernel of your argument, as I understand it, is that "the fact that Ireland was then part of the United Kingdom is not sufficiently well known". My response is, why is it the responsibility of an article on an educational institution to make that fact known? Collège Bourget does not say, "The college was founded in 1850 in what was then the Province of Canada, one of the four provinces that went to make up modern Canada." Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Köln does not say, "The academy was founded in 1850 in what was then the Kingdom of Prussia in the period between the end of the Holy Roman Empire and the creation of the German Empire." Certainly, neither of them link to the History of Quebec, History of Canada, History of Prussia or History of Germany articles. These colleges were both founded around the same time as the Catholic University of Ireland, and I picked them entirely at random via categories. I think it's a safe bet to say you won't find an obsession with what 'sovereign state' the site of a college was founded in in the majority of articles on educational establishments. That, as I said to Mabuska, is why I object to people making UK-centric changes to Ireland-related articles on pseudo-legalistic grounds, without regard to general convention. Scolaire (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally I concentrate on the substantive text and worry less and less about infoboxes, templates, and other trimmings. I might change my stylesheet to hide them altogether. To clarify: I have no opinion on whether we ought to write "born in Ireland" or "born in Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom"; but wikilinking depends on which we write, which should tally with whether we write "born in Iceland, then part of the Kingdom of Denmark"; "born in Finland, then part of the Kingdom of Sweden/Russian Empire", etc. Conventions may differ for biographies as against educational institutions; discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Education may be useful to establish e.g. the conventions for infoboxes. The polity in which the Catholic University of Dublin was founded was important in its founding, but discussion of this in the body of the article is more important than a (curt ;) wikilink in an infobox. jnestorius(talk) 14:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A different point: Collège Bourget and Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Köln are still extant, so not comparable to he historical CUD. Check Category:Defunct universities and colleges by country for better analogies. jnestorius(talk) 16:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks. Defunct or extant, either there is mention of the 'sovereign state' when writing about the founding of it or there isn't. By all means, you go through the defunct categories, and if you discover the convention is different for defunct than for extant institutions, let me know.
Biographies and infoboxes were discussed during the summer at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 8#Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. At that time, again just pulling a name out of my head, I found that Omar Khayyám links to Iran. No messing around with historical or 'sovereign' states there! This is not new, and every discussion concludes with the convention being maintained that Ireland is just Ireland, regardless of the historical period. This is now formalised in IMOS#Place of birth, death etc.. I see no point in opening a discussion on multiple Wikiprojects on the strength of three edits by an IP that went against what is already accepted convention and were reverted without further repercussions. Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I like Dmcq's suggestion, and still reject Scolaire's argument. Jnestorius' comment is quite good and raises some of the problems with the arguments of overlink and easter egg, used and abused by the same few editors. "UK-centric changes"? Considering it was a part of the UK then, obviously it is UK-centric. Mabuska (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Ulster used instead of Northern Ireland. From reading the archives and the WP:MOS, it shouldnt be done. Is there any criteria to use it instead? Murry1975 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia to describe Northern Ireland. But we also have to acknowledge that it is commonly so applied. So I guess it depends on the circumstance, we'd certainly have to keep it in quotes and the names of organizations for instance. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah as far as I have gathered from the archives "Ulster Says No" is fine, "served in South Armagh, Ulster" is not. Just making sure I havent missed something. Murry1975 (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup. Agree. On Wikipedia we say "Northern Ireland" but we don't modify the name of institutions or quotations. And I wouldn't labour the point in an article. --Tóraí (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Stating Ulster holds as much legitimacy as using "the North" or "the Six Counties". Mabuska (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, nothing like seeing some on replace Northern Ireland with the North of Ireland is there? (I have came across that, cant remember where, but true story). Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


When a ENGVARB by OhConfusses got change to British-English, I have changed it to Irish-English, first an IP then A newbie (probably the IP) reverts, here is a link to the talk-page and his comment. In terms of writing there's no diff between British English and so-called Irish English, so stop trying to confuse people with a politically motivated edit telling people to use a language type with which they might not be familiar. Your insistence on setting this article to Irish English is not helpful and adds nothing. Any ideas folks? Murry1975 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that in terms of writing an encyclopaedia article there's no difference. We don't say "Sure, we're after exiting the bail-out". There's nothing wrong with calling it British English. Scolaire (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
What Scolaire? I dont follow your logic there. There are several variants of English used on here in Irish English is one, as is British English. EngvarB is used to indicate a non-British English variant on the article- be it American, Irish or Caribbean, this is a guideline on the encyclopedia. And by your logic we then change ALL the Irish-English articles to British-English? Murry1975 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
EngvarB is for all non-American variants, including British and Irish. It essentially means that we use -ise, not -ize etc. I cannot think of any example of something that might be written (outside of quotes) in an article in "Irish English" as opposed to "British English" or "non-American English". As regards your own little edit-war, Ian Harte made his name and his living in England, so I can see no justification for insisting that his article be written in "Irish English", even if that was different to the other two variants. Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I support the existence of {{Use Irish English}}, though whether it applies to Harte is another question. I don't agree 'there's no difference'; although it rarely makes a difference, there is no disadvantage in allowing for it. As regards spelling, which is the main robotised purpose of those tags, Ireland does indeed follow BrE rather than AmE. However, in other aspects of the language, I can think of a few differences. Darndale has "a HSE Primary Care Unit", not "an HSE Primary Care Unit". In a Republic article one shouldn't write "police", except perhaps in an initial "Garda (police)". We don't have "Boxing Day" except on Sky Sports. Editors shouldn't choose a local word/spelling/grammatical construction simply as a form of flag-planting, if a global equivalent is available. I roll my eyes at Scottish articles using "outwith", when "outside" is just as good within Scotland and far better outwith it. Should Tuam Celtic F.C. say "soccer" rather than "football"? Depends whether the "locale" is Ireland, Galway, Tuam, or Tuam FC clubhouse. In any case, "association football" is the global Wikicompromise. jnestorius(talk) 20:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen an article written in Hiberno-English yet to merit "Irish English", though why do these articles need these tags at all in the first place? Many articles I have seen added with this tag never had a tag beforehand and all used non-American English anyways. Mabuska (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say there is are sufficient difference between Irish English and British English to warrant flagging articles. The differences are subtle enough but sufficient to cause annoyance if an editor went to "fix" words that are fine in Irish English but are not standard in British English.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about but take for example the List of amendments and referendums to the Irish constitution. In British English, that would be more typically a list of "referenda". I would suggest too that there are differences in tendencies towards or away from certain words ("jail" vs. "prison"). I would also say that Irish English is more open to words that British English would see as American English (e.g. "elevator" vs. "lift"). --Tóraí (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you need better words to use to make your point as I use both forms of those examples and don't regard myself as speaking "Irish English". A strange mixture of Mid-Ulster English and Scots, aye but not Hiberno-Irish. Maybe lorry and truck would be better? Mabuska (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Though "Irish English" and "Hiberno English" are most often used interchangeably, it is possible to distinguish between a broader "Irish English" (simply, English as spoken in Ireland) and a narrower "Hiberno-English" (meaning those specifically Irish elements such as one finds in J. M. Synge). I think it's clear that, using those temporary definitions, no article should use "Hiberno-English", but many could use "Irish English".
  • If EngvarB treats {{Use Irish English}} the same as {{Use British English}}, then there is no disadvantage to using {{Use Irish English}} on unequivocally Irish articles. OTOH there is an advantage for human editors unaware of the existence of EngvarB who would be confused or even offended by {{Use British English}}. There should be {{Use Ulster English}} as well to avoid revert wars on Rory McIlroy.
  • Maybe future cleverer bots will be able to exploit Ireland-specific features; then again, maybe they will be able to do so without any need for a clunky "Use xxx English" template. IMO those tag templates should, to avoid confusion, use clearer names and/or be on the Talk page; but that's another story. AFAIK where commercial spellcheckers have an en-ie setting, it uses the same rules as en-uk but with extra items in the wordlists, most if not all of which are proper names (Oireachtas, Caolfhionn,...). EngvarB currently ignores words with an initial capital.

jnestorius(talk) 10:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Quote from WP:ENGVAR: This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.. I think the above is what is described as a "lame debate". The tags appear to be more trouble than they are worth and seem to be being used to "claim national ownership". For instance, there's a Use Irish English tag on the Ireland national rugby union team article. Why? That team represents the RoI and part of the UK. The tag is just asking for trouble and not necessary. For the vast majority of articles it's clear what English version should be used, and when someone deviates from it, other editors will quickly "fix it". The Roman Candle (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
For the vast majority of articles it's clear to humans what English version should be used, but not necessarily to robots. As I said "IMO those tag templates should, to avoid confusion, use clearer names and/or be on the Talk page". jnestorius(talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

IMOS at List_of_Ireland_national_rugby_union_team_records

Dubsboy has made these edits, basically following my edit history, and adding ROI anywhere possible (like certain other edits). Now he will argue that because Ireland is mentioned and linked in the opening line (an edit he just did, as opposed to this one) that ROI has to be used in the tables. Now as we have discussed before on here its clearly about context use, and the context of use is clear. Any opinions on this folks? Murry1975 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on either of the article talk pages, or either of your user talk pages. There are no sanctions for following WP:BRD, so why don't you revert, then discuss with the editor. FWIW, I think he's clearly out of line, and he apparently has a history of disruptive editing, but that's no reason to call in the cavalry before discussing the edits with the editor. If such a discussion shows that IMOS is capable of interpretation in different ways, maybe then we should discuss it here with a view to re-wording. Scolaire (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Personally I don't have a strong objection in that case since it represents the whole island and both parts are mentioned. I think I'd say island of Ireland or the whole of Ireland at the top as well rather than just linking. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dmcq as both the island and state are being discussed, with the island mentioned in the very first sentence so I believe it should be mentioned and that it should state "the island of", which I will be WP:BOLD and add. In the table it mentions Ireland the team which represents the island so it would be wrong to state "Dublin, Ireland" as we are taking about states in the ground field and Ireland the island is not a state. Mabuska (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any discussion on the article talk pages! IMOS is not the place for discussing article-related content issues. Scolaire (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This was really an attempt at meat puppetry from Murry1975. I think my edit removes ambiguity which is the whole point of IMOS. Just to note that Murry1975 made an IMOS edit prior to my own [1] replacing Republic of Ireland with Ireland. Something he does systematically across wikipedia, much the same as that other IMOS warrior. I've a telephone call here from a Mr Pot looking to speak to a Mr Kettle. Telephone call for Mr Kettle. Must be a wrong number.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talkcontribs) 14:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Meat puppetry? I'm lost here. Who's he supposed to be acting for? Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Well it appears he is trying to get a gang together to revert my edits. Why else would I be cited in the topic title? This topic is as much about my application of IMOS as it is about the viewpoint taken by Murry1975.
Please read WP:NPA there, please strie the comment.
As this is an issue that will affect more than one article we need to garner consensus. And do not refractor my edits again. Murry1975 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
And the edit I originally made was replacing [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]] with [[Dublin]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], now IMOS would state no-linking- but I general will link if it linked already. So do not misrepresent the facts the DB. Murry1975 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the personal attacks began when the topic was raised regarding myself rather than the ambiguity of IMOS. We clearly have different interpretations of IMOS. This conversation is as much about my application of IMOS as it is about yours. You believe that it is ok to remove every instance of Republic of Ireland with Ireland, when at times it clearly goes against IMOS and opens up articles to confusion.Dubs boy (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ohhh didums. No I dont believe every circumstance, but when it is clear context as the list Lansdowne Road, Dublin, Ireland is pretty clear where it means. Now considering this is the arounf the sixth page you have stalked me onto its smelling very fimilar. Murry1975 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) This shows your personal view. You seem to want to impose your POV on here. Murry1975 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Then it brings your own POV into question if you do not believe it is ambiguous to say that the Ireland(representing Ireland) rugby team play their games in Dublin, Ireland. And if I see a user make an error on a page that is on my watchlist, as a custodian of wikipedia I will correct the edit. I would hope you would continue to do the same, as you have done.Dubs boy (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Naming people

I have a question related to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Naming_people. In the case where Kevin Danaher article says "His "academic" works were signed with his Irish name, Caoimhín Ó Danachair." not a particularly well known bio, there must be better examples. Joseph Campbell (poet) (redirect from Seosamh MacCathmhaoil) etc. Are there cases (not for these examples, generally) where the English name is used in some articles/contexts and the Irish name used in other articles/contexts? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Or is there a blanket rule that whatever name is used in Bio article title, all other article mentions must follow suit? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
No, there's no rule at all. In-article use, as often as not, depends on the cited sources. An article can only have one title, but there are plenty of instances (Seán T. O'Kelly / Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh) where the two names are equally well-known, and the choice of article title is more or less by lottery. Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Scolaire thanks, that's a clear and helpful answer. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Scolaire, follow up question. How does your answer relate to MOS:FOREIGN "'Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. ... For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article", could that guideline be read to say that the Irish spelling "Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh" should be removed from all other articles because the bio is, as you correctly say more or less by lottery, at the English spelling Seán T. O'Kelly? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on guidelines. However, what you have quoted to me there says that there should be consistency in the title and the text of an article. It says nothing about "all other articles". As for "spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article", that is exactly what I said to you above: "In-article use, as often as not, depends on the cited sources." Where two names are in common use, it is to be expected that one of them will be "more commonly used" in the sources for some articles, and the other in the sources for other articles.
I'm not sure of your reason for pursuing this enquiry, but I can say that I have never seen a problem arising from the in-article use of Irish or English versions of a name where both versions are commonly used, and I would not like to see any articles disrupted just for the sake of bureaucracy. --Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. The guideline applies to the name used in English, not just the English name used in documents. Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh is used in lots of English documents and is used in English. If it was just used on sources in Irish then of course it wouldn't be a common name in English. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Scolaire, User:Dmcq. Thank you both for your answers, yes that's clear-ish to me also, however I still wonder if the guideline should be word-smithed to make it clearer?
Scolarire, to address your question for pursuing this enquiry, it is a general principle related to en.wp style, it could be applied to German/Hungarian, Ukranian/Russian, Serbian/Albanian or any other area of "joint claim" on en.wp. I did not know that there has never been a problem arising from the in-article use of Irish or English versions of a name where both versions are commonly used, and am glad to hear it. My specific reason for questioning how WP Ireland handles MOS:FOREIGN is due to MOS:FOREIGN being cited at Talk:Pablo Casals as reason for removing the Catalan name "Pau Casals" from the 30 of 300 articles which had used it rather than his Spanish name "Pablo". I am not sure there is a direct parallel with English/Irish names and Spanish/Catalan names, but I do know that WikiProject Ireland is a much more editor-populated and active area than WikiProject Catalonia, and less controversy affected than e.g. the Balkan projects, hence more likely to have some calm experience on how to handle such issues - as in fact your answers have demonstrated. I hope this explains the question. I have no problem whatsoever with the state of any Ireland articles, which overall seem to me exemplary. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL and National Day of Commemoration

One IP hoping southeast England editor and one registrared editor using an IP, have both being editing the infobox and catergory list, just IP editor and IP/registrared editor. Both adding ROI in the info box, and adjusting a Ireland cat to a ROI one that doesnt exist. This is the third article that I have edited over a period of months where a pop-up s/e England IP has reverted me (see above for one) and the other user Dalriata111 (talk · contribs) has been on here awhile as an IP, set up an account main edits are GB-->UK and Ireland-->ROI (claims ROI is the name of the state since the ROI act). Now some advice and imput please. Murry1975 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

IMOS on a side note

This edit added Banner o Airlann to the flag of Ireland article. Two things, firstly a quick search doesnt throw-up anything, and secondly, as far as I am away we dont use U/S on articles state centric. Again imput please. Murry1975 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bagenalstown/Muine Bheag

The IMOS states "Where the English- and Irish-language names are different... and the Irish name is official and has gained favour in English, use the official Irish name (Muine Bheag, not Bagenalstown)." Bad example, as Bagenalstown is still far more commonly used that Muine Bheag. Is there a better example? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Cobh rather than Queenstown. Dún Laoghaire rather than Kingstown (or Dunleary). Port Laoise rather than Maryborough or Leix. I would disagree in relation to Muine Bheag itself though, it seems to be in common use going by Google. Gaelmise (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Bagenalstown - 276,000 results. Muine Bheag - 176,000 results. The Dún Laoghaire example is a good one (Irish name used instead of an anglicised version); the others, not really, as they were places that were renamed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I recommend simply changing it to Dún Laoghaire/Dunleary. The examples in a MOS should be unambiguous, and the application of the MOS should be thrashed out on the individual article talk page, if necessary. Scolaire (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes I thought Bagenalstown was more common, I'm surprised Muine Bheag occurs so often. Dmcq (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see what is ambiguous in the case of Dún Laoghaire. The Irish version of the name clearly has gained favor in English use. Gaelmise (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops! Looking at the edit I've realized that Dún Laoghaire is not appropriate at all. It is supposed to illustrate the situation where the English- and Irish-language names are different. So, if it was still called "Kingstown", but Dún Laoghaire was used more commonly in English, it would fit the bill. That is not the case, however, and Dún Laoghaire is really an exception to the previous rule, that if the English- and Irish-language names are the same or very nearly the same, but the spellings differ, you use the English spelling. "Queenstown" and "Maryborough" are similarly unsuitable, because they are not current names. Regretfully, I am going to have to revert to "Muine Bheag, not Bagenalstown" unless and until a better example of different, current names is found, or it is decided to change the wording of the MOS. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Will put my thinking cap on... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If it's so hard to think of a case where the rule applies, is it worth bothering to have the rule at all? jnestorius(talk) 10:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland

Can anyone direct me to the archived discussion/vote that led to the current MOS for 'Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland'? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Here, and here (two sections), easy to find if you read the archives. Murry1975 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid trudging through a lot of archives by catching the attention of someone who knew exactly where to go. Both of the links you gave are from after whenever the real debate occurred and accept the IMOS as a given, they're just tinkering around the edges. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean the Poll on Ireland article names, Gob Lofa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talkcontribs) 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm searching for the source for the blanket insistence that all links to ROI must be pipes and that when both the state and the island are being discussed, 'Republic of' must be dropped in favour of 'island of'. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If you're talking about IMOS itself, then you have no choice but to trawl back through the archives. That section is not the result of a single discussion/vote, but has evolved over several years, and is the result of consensus arrived at in different discussions at different pages and forums (or sometimes conventions that arose over time without there being a definitive discussion/vote, as is the case with pipelinking, for instance). The discussions on Ireland, island of Ireland and Republic of Ireland largely took place between about August 2008 and September 2009 at the respective article talk pages, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Ireland disambiguation task force and its talk page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, WT:IECOLL and the poll. Pipelinking was one of the issues that were meant to be discussed after the naming poll ended, but by then everybody seems to have accepted the pipelinking solution, because that, and other, discussions never took place. IMOS was edited at various times during those discussions to try to reflect current consensus. The second discussion that Murry linked to above was where we talked about tidying the resulting guideline so that it was concise, precise, informative and in line with current conventions.
It's not particularly helpful to use phrases like "blanket insistence". If you are dissatisfied with the wording of IMOS you can always make suggestions for change. Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Ta, I'll have a look. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It works as is, please don't suggest changing it. Mabuska (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles

Please give your opinion at Talk:Derry#RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles. Dmcq (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Article namespace double-disambiguation

I would like to get a confirmed consensus agreed and put into WP:IMOS on what convention should be employed in regards to article names, for when the issue has arised in the past, there is always disagreement between a few editors (including me) over a preferred manual of style, and the discussion always seems to be left unresolved with editors simply removing themselves from the discussion. Thus there never seems to be a consensus to call upon when the issue, as it inevitably, as it has recently, re-arises.

There is more than one place in the island of Ireland called Castlereagh, thankfully all located in different counties or civil parishes so we add a simple disambiguation title such as "Castlereagh, County Down" or "Castlereagh, County Offaly". This seems to be the common standard for place names anywhere in the world when it comes to situations such as this looking at various articles such as Leitrim, Aughrim, Ballykelly, Newcastle etc.

If there is two different types of geographical unit that have the same name, for example "Keenaght", which can either be a townland (a small unit of land in Ireland) or a barony (a far larger unit of land), then the common standard seems to be the use of brackets, hence we have "Keenaght (barony)" and "Keenaght (townland)", with Keenaght being a disambiguation page. The use of brackets for different types of unit is also used to distinguish: the town of Ballymena from Ballymena (borough); the town of Carrickfergus from Carrickfergus (barony) (and Carrickfergus (song), Carrickfergus (poem) incidentally); the disambiguation page Ards (a lot of different uses for that term) from Ards (territory), Ards (borough), Ards (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency); the town of Newcastle-under-Lyme from Newcastle-under-Lyme (borough) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (UK Parliament constituency); etc. etc. etc.

Going by the discussion between myself and Jnestorius at Talk:Castlereagh_(County_Down_townland)#Merger_proposal, we seem to agree that the above seems to be the way of handling such disambiguation. Now here comes the bit that seems to be the crux of the issue and it is where we disagree... How do you disambiguate two different types of entity that are both in the same place that also needs disambiguated from the same thing in a different place? For example "Castlereagh, County Down" can refer to a townland but also to a barony, however there are other baronies and townlands in Ireland called Castlereagh. My personal opinion is to use "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)". Jnestorius prefers "Castlereagh (County Down townland)" and "Castlereagh (County Down barony)", which they have also used for "Castlereagh (County Roscommon barony)".

The standard for places of the same name in different locations gives "Castlereagh, County Down" and "Castlereagh, County Roscommon". The standard for different types of unit of same name gives "Castlereagh (barony)" and "Castlereagh (townland)". Ergo logically combining these two standards produces "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)" and that is what I believe should be the accepted MoS for double-disambiguation.

Mabuska (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As you say, it's a case of double-disambiguation. The question then is, which is to be the primary disambiguator? If it is the location, then "Castlereagh, County Down" becomes "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)". If, on the other hand, it is the entity, then "Castlereagh (barony)" becomes "Castlereagh (County Down barony)" and "Castlereagh (County Roscommon barony)". Either is a logical combination of the two, but neither is the logical combination. Either a case has to be made for each of the two, and the stronger argument decides, or one has to be chosen arbitrarily. Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that me and Jnestorius disagree with each other on what one, and I don't think either or us will change our minds so it may have to be chosen arbitrarily, though my argument to me is logical based upon the standards we already use for place and unit, and frankly looks better and more encyclopedic. On your suggestion, I would say (obviously) that location is the primary disambiguator. Why? Because we already have several different Castlereagh baronies and townlands, so obviously the type can't be the primary disambiguator but location. The use of a type is as a secondary disambiguator. That is plain from the fact both mine and Jnestorius' preferred choices put location before type. Mabuska (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the statement "we already have several different Castlereagh baronies and townlands" uses entity as the primary disambiguator. It says that within the entity set there are items at different locations. And putting one word before another doesn't say anything about precedence. "County Down barony" is good English and "barony County Down" is not, that's all. I'm not taking sides here; I'd just like to see stronger arguments. Scolaire (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Honestly I don't think stronger arguments can be given by either side. Personally my preference combines the standards used for same name different place and same name different type. I was going to post this at the Disambiguation WikiProject and may yet request their advice as this issue may intrigue them and they may know of other examples elsewhere that can help. Mabuska (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be a good idea. That talk page is more active than this one, and participants are more used to debating the pros and cons of disambiguation. A word of advice: make it brief and make it neutral. You summed it up well in a few sentences in your first post: How do you disambiguate two different types of entity that are both in the same place that also need disambiguated from the same thing in a different place? For example "Castlereagh, County Down" can refer to a townland but also to a barony, however there are other baronies and townlands in Ireland called Castlereagh. My personal opinion is to use "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)". [Another user] prefers "Castlereagh (County Down townland)" and "Castlereagh (County Down barony)", which they have also used for "Castlereagh (County Roscommon barony)". Any more detail is TL;DR, and an explanation of why your version is (obviously) right is more likely to kill discussion than encourage it. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
My belief is that "Placename, County CName" is only Wikipedia:NATURAL where there is only one place of that name in the county. In all other cases it is not natural and hence ought not to be used. The only time someone would use the formula "Castlereagh, County Down" to refer to the townland (as opposed to the barony or borough) would be in a context where it was clear only townlands were being discussed but not clear what part of the island was meant. Maybe if they were giving a list of Irish townlands? Rather artificial. I'm not sure conventions elsewhere are applicable: e.g. Attica (town), New York and Attica (village), New York look weird to me. jnestorius(talk) 08:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
For those examples I'd have used Attice, New York (village) etc. I will go ahead and post Scolaire's suggestion at the disambiguation project page and see what they think. It might be intriguing enough for them. Mabuska (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I've requested their help. Mabuska (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
And here as well as there seems to be two, though I think the original request was not the actual WikiProject. Mabuska (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The second one (the WikiProject) is for disambiguation pages, as opposed to disambiguation in article titles. Typically, the only replies you got so far are there. Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mabuska: it is now seven days since you posted the request at WikiProject Disambiguation. Only one member has offered an opinion, and he/she has come down in favour of brackets over commas. Having asked the question, I think you will have to accept the answer. Scolaire (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This issue only affects four articles, one of which (the Roscommon townland) is a redlink, and the other (Roscommon barony) is a very tiny stub only created by Jnestorius after the issue arose so that they could reinforce their argument against me using Castlereagh (barony) and Castlereagh (townland) as the primary topic namespaces for the County Down versions. Reasonable enough, if there is a good reason to deny them the primary topic namespace.
There is another possible solution. Considering Castlereagh (County Down townland) is an actual article of sourced content and that Castlereagh (County Down barony) will be more substantial when I get around to it (in the style of Ards (territory) and Lecale, that they occupy the primary topic namespaces of Castlereagh (barony) and Castlereagh (townland), with "For the..." at the top of each article pointing to the obvious. Considering the high probability that the Roscommon townland version remains a redlink and the barony one a very tiny stub—unless Jnestorius decides to work on them—they could be in one article titled Castlereagh, County Roscommon, which mentions that they are both land units in that county. Problem solved. Mabuska (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jnestorius: @Scolaire: Mabuska (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"Problem solved" -- what problem do you think is solved by moving Castlereagh (County Down townland) to Castlereagh (townland)? jnestorius(talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
And why ping me? I offered the completely disinterested view that if you ask a question at the relevant WikiProject you should go with what you're told there. If you decide to go off and do something different that's no concern of mine. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Simply because you left thr last reply before mine thinking I should accept the answer. At Jnestorius - this problem, what else? Do you have an actual argument as to why they can't occupy the primary topic namespaces? Or do you want to keep avoiding answering directly as your unreasonableness of this issue really goes to new heights. There is no other Castlereagh townland article on this site so why can't the County Down townland article occupy the primary topic namespace? It can include a "For other townlands in Ireland called Castlereagh see Castlereagh (disambiguation)" at the top of it for the redlinked townlands, which would be standard practice on Wikipedia. Or will you decide to go and create them for badness just like the Roscommon barony? Mabuska (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


I have added a bit re Derry / Londonderry asking people to keep to the pattern even when the subject relates to one side of the sectarian divide. This appears to be the way in which existing appeals to this guideline expect it to be interpreted but I thought it would be good to be explicit. Hope that's okay. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:British politicians convicted of crimes

I have been involved, in a minor manner, in one of the places this is being discussed. An RFC has been put out too. Talk:Martina Anderson. Murry1975 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change of Northern Ireland location maps

A discussion is being held at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Location_maps_.28Northern_Ireland.29 about the map used in all NI settlement articles that have an infobox. More input is needed please. Mabuska (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)