Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

Mary McAleese
President of Ireland

Career
Rank	8th President
Term	11th November, 1997 – present
Preceded by	Mary Robinson
Succeeded by	(Incumbent)
Party	Fianna Fáil
Personal
Date of birth	27 June, 1951
Place of birth	Belfast, Northern Ireland
Spouse	Martin McAleese
Profession	Former Pro-Vice Chancellor QUB, journalist

As stated above in the section on the county infoboxes, i have began working on a new box for the Taoiseach and President. I have decided to combine them into one box, instead of separate one for each, this is mainly because of the status of one person, deV. I have tried to make the coding for it as uncomplicated as i can, and designed it with the least amount of visual quirks, though at the present it looks as their might be at least one that will be present, as possible. The current versions are by no means finals, and will be changes and fine tuned before going live, but features like career section, i do plan to go with for current practical purposes and restraints of the system. I left out some parts of the various boxes that are being used, and i am not sure that all will be included. Either way please do take a look over them, comment and suggestions are very welcome. I have three versions that you can view, a Taoiseach version for Lynch, a president version for McAleese, and a combi for de Valera, the gallery is at User:Boothy443/Sandbox/player 2. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

In lieu of any comments on the proposed changes that i have made, considering it has now been about a week, i am going to move ahead and over the weekend roll out the new template on all of the pages for the Taoiseach and the President, at least the ones that i can. The version that will be used will be the one on the right, the same verson for others can be see at User:Boothy443/Sandbox/player 2, but the page might only last untill monday. Comments are still welcomed, and changes will still be made pending comments. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Done --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The category Category:Taoisigh of the Republic of Ireland does not reflect the correct title of this office, vis Taoiseach na hÉireann/Prime Minister of Ireland. I am going to propose a rename but first want to get a bit of discussion on alternatives, of Category:Taoisigh of Ireland or Category:Taoisigh, does anyone have preferences or alternatives? Djegan 13:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Personaly i would go with just Category:Taoisigh, as the term is not used, at least to my knowledge, to officialy name the office outside of Irelandm that being the office of Prime Minister or respective position. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Taoisigh of Ireland is would be corrected. Given that there are no other taoisigh but those in the south there would be no confusion over the non-use of a name referring to the southern state. In addition the office of Taoiseach predates the Republic of Ireland by twelve years. FearÉIREANN 20:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to vote at [1]. Djegan 20:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The list of users on the project page is getting very long (A good sign of success, I suppose) Is there a way we could format it into columns? I tried using table code, but it made it worse. Seabhcán 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We could dump the list altogether and just ask people to cat their user page? Djegan 19:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've created Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity and Category:Irish Wikipedians for this, for those who'd like to go this way. I personally think it's a good idea. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 15:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I am out of time on this one but I worked out a quick solution for the List of people on stamps of Ireland that I wrote up at Karmafist's talk page. Basically you copy the list to a spreadsheet and turn that into html and repaste it back in after some minor manipulation. It works nicely, and quite quickly, for a finite list, so maybe I can make a 3 column list for the 1st 99. On just tell me what to do with it. ww2censor 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on the main page, I'd like to develop articles on diocesan structures in Ireland but would like to clear up a number of issues before proceeding further.

*What I've done so far and would like (me and others) to do for the remaining dioceses:

I already done some work on the Diocese of Clonfert. I started that article as well as an article on the historical see of that diocese (Clonfert), Clonfert Cathedral (this historical see of the bishop), and a List of Bishops of Clonfert. A List of Archbishops of Tuam is nearly ready.

*Problems encountered:

The history of any diocese in Ireland will have to deal with the pre-Reformation and post-Reformation periods. This gives rise to a number of questions, the most important one being which diocese - Roman Catholic or Church of Ireland - should be considered as the "legitimate sucessor" to the pre-Reformation see. As it stands, both Churches claim this and disput the validity of each others claims (although these debates are no longer argued publicly).

At present, there is a List_of_Church_of_Ireland_dioceses and a List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland. Clonfert is a Roman Catholic diocese and was once a Church of Ireland diocese (which now forms part of the Diocese of Limerick, Killaloe, Kilfenora, Clonfert, Kilmacduagh and Emly).

In my article on the the Diocese of Clonfert, I treated the pre- and post-Reformation periods and included information on the Catholic and hope to develop a section on the Church of Ireland history in Clonfert. I also included all office holders (pre- and post-Reformation bishops) on the List of Bishops of Clonfert.

Is this the way to go for the remaining dioceses or do people favour a clear division, as in the case of the Archdiocese of Armagh? Here there is a List of Church of Ireland Archbishops of Armagh and a List of Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh. This is problematic in my view as the bishops from 445 to the 1520s are the same.

So, to sum up. Do people think there should be

• a single list of bishops of a particular diocese (including Catholics and Anglicans as in the Clonfert example) or seperate lists (as in the Armagh case)?
• should the articles of the individual dioceses deal with the pre-Reformation, Catholic and CoI histories in these areas together or seperately?--Damac 21:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think if it is possible to have a map of Ireland with both the Roman Catholic dioceses and Church of Ireland ones. --Iano200 17:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Where has the image Image:Ireland coa.png gone, is it just me that sees a red link? Djegan 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have uploaded a different image for the coat of arms Image:COA IRELAND.PNG. Any comments welcome as I will not have access to a crt monitor until tommorrow morning - so may not see it the same way as others (remember the lime green ireland fiasco). Djegan 21:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; the image link works perfectly. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well seeing that you reuploed it doay, i cant say. But i would guess image police or "incert other term here" going about tagging images that a arnt "tagged correctly" or bhvae no source, FYI they dont, if they do its extemely rare, warn the uploader that the image is going to be delted to that one can fill in the relevant information to prevent the deletion. Word to the wise, i would chech your images that you have uploaded to see that you have a tag on the and then a source, and also i would watch list them, so you know if that have been tagged. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I invite all Irish Wikipedians to have a look at this article and then vote for a Speedy Delete on the article's section of the "Articles for Deletion". Camillus^{talk|contribs} 00:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There's now a stub type for articles about Irish history: {{Ireland-hist-stub}} / Category:Irish history stubs. --Mairi 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've expanded this important article and hopefuly improved it, as it was in poor state before. However, i would appreciate it if someone with more knowledge than myself of modern history would do some work on the later sections. I feel we need paragraphs on Clann na Gael, the IRB, the Home Rule movement, Sinn Fein, FF, FG etc. In particular I feel the article should explain the link between Irish nationalism, Irish identity and communal politics. Jdorney 15:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've finished my edits of Irish Nationalism. I would appreciate the views and also corrections of people here. Cheers Jdorney 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I knew, Óglaigh na hÉireann translated as Volunteers of Ireland. However this diff cast some doubt in my mind on the subject. Using an online Irish-English dictionary, I got for "volunteer" both "saorálaí" and "ólgach." So it does mean "volunteers," no? Blackcap (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• You never preserve 100% of the meaning of a word or phrase by translating it into another language - translation isn't as neat as that. Óglach only really means "volunteer" in the military, Irish republican etc. senses of that word - i.e. when you're talking about the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Republican Army, the Irish Defence Forces, PIRA and so on. All those groups claim or claimed the name Óglaigh na hÉireann in Irish, so you could say that Óglaigh na hÉireann can be translated in any of these ways. A volunteer in the sense of, say, someone giving up their time to help elderly people would be a totally different word. "Óglach" also has nuances of a young man or young warrior, or of a young servant (compare the word óg, meaning young). So, to answer your question, it is usually fine to generally translate Óglaigh na hÉireann as Volunteers of Ireland, in context (for the purposes of the Óglaigh na hÉireann article anyway), especially seeing as that's how it's traditionally been translated for the last hundred years or more. --Kwekubo 04:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Currently their are two conflicting categories for government of the Republic of Ireland; these are Category:Government of Ireland and Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland, I propose to merge these two and prefer the latter which has the Republic of Ireland clearly disambiguating the terminology.

Neither of these should be confused with Category:Irish Government which is the category for the Government, i.e. Taoiseach, Tánaiste and the Ministers of the Government as clearly defined by constitution and law.

This should avoid conflict with previous proposals for related categories, as the proposed merger will be a generic category rather than that a category for a specific organ of the state.

Any comments, disagreements or proposals, before my proposal is submitted? Djegan 00:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I do think it unwise to use the Republic of Ireland.

1. It can be misleading for all things pre-dating 1949.
2. There actually is no such name. The official name of Ireland is . . . well Ireland and that is what is used internationally, even now by Britain. When President Robinson visited Buckingham Palace some years ago the Irish delegation were pleasantly surprised — actually 'astonished' is more accurate — to find the press passes issued for the visit of the 'President of Ireland'. For decades the British government had insisted on referring to the 'President of the Republic of Ireland' or 'President of the Irish Republic'. And Irish ambassadors were never referred to as such. Now they are. So every state on earth uses 'Ireland' when referring to the southern state. No-one any longer uses 'Republic of Ireland', which is apt as the Republic of Ireland Act did make clear that that was the state's description, not its name. Even Paisley now says 'Ireland' on occasion! So if it is good enough for Her Majesty and Big Ian, and the alternative doesn't actually legally exist at all, it should be OK to use on WP.
3. There is no disamgulation problem because Northern Ireland uses NI or Ulster. It does not claim the name 'Ireland' and whereas before some Unionists did make an issue of the south using 'Ireland' they no longer do so. (Paisley for example, spoke about meeting the "Irish ambassador" and visited the "Irish embassy", and calls Bertie the "Irish Prime Minister".
4. Using Ireland enables the inclusion of pre-independence structures such as the Lord Lieutenancy, the Chief Secretaryship, the Irish Privy Council, etc.

I think using "Republic of Ireland" is both technically wrong and an unnecessary bit of disambigulation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point and I would prefer simply "Ireland", in better times when more Irish wikipedians where active we could guarentee this sort of vote. But currently if I did submit a request beyond you and I it would be two (except for a few passers by) against everyone else, its difficult to get the troops roused without begging them for their vote at present. As their is no consensus at the moment I am not going to submitt a request. Djegan 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Boothy443/Sandbox/ie county

I propose a new template Template:Infobox Irish Place which will integrate several place related infoboxes such as Template:Ireland city infobox, Template:Ireland county infobox, Template:Ireland province infobox, Template:Ie citytown infobox giving a common style and theme.

By using class="hiddenStructure{{{variable}}}" in the template we can make a variable (and the associated cells) not appear in an article simply by not including the variable. This means that a single common template can be tailored for a variety of different requirements, i.e. what is required in a city, county and province box are quite distinct.

An implementation can be seen with Template:Infobox Irish University, and the result of using it at National University of Ireland and King's Inns can be seen as both have different requirements in terms of what information is required but using one template.

Obviously the advantages are using a single well defined but flexible template.

Any comments? Djegan 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with intergrating all of them into one templat, and would be willing to take up the work to do it, would give me something on the side to do. But i currently see that their is going to be an issue with the coding, having to do with the dot marker. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok so i gave it a crack, and came up with these, they all use the same template, all the information from the current templates is being used as well. Ther have been a few minor changes, param lables, and such. I would not considered it finished as of yet, still considering colour usage and such. Commenst and ideas are welcomed, and requested. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 10:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

They are quite impressive, only just got around to checking and commenting. Straight off the only noticeable issue is the field "Population: (2002)", this could be an issue with Northern Ireland counties as their is no statistics on population for them (just estimates), also cities and towns are a hazy issue (but no more so than now) for Northern Ireland; so some discussion perhaps. Certainly as you have managed to elimanate the dot issue effectively, this means the benifit of one template cannot be overstated. Regarding colours and such I rather some cells having a distinctive outline, perhaps just for horizontal lines separating names, mottos, maps and data? Djegan 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the census year, i can see where you are coming from with that being a possible problem. What i did do, is i set is as an optional variable, so the display of the year is dependent on the viarble used, in the case of the exaples, the last census being in 2002 the date is 2002. For the place in the north, most notably the counties, i figure we could just with est for estimate, or just make the variable blank and have it display nothing. As for the dot issue, it's not completly solved, but it's an improvment from my first go a it. The problem comes in where it displays the dot in IE vs FireFox, currently their is a silght discrepency to the right or to the left, depending on the browser. I havnt figured out why, this is the case, or a good fix for it, but it works for now. As for cell colours, the cells on the left currently do have colour in the, it's the same light green thats used in Template:Ie citytown infobox, but aginst the grey and with no other green in the template (becides on the map) it doesnt show well, so i'll look to darken it up a bit for better def. I want to stay way from bordered cells, templats seem to be going in that direction, for now, but will concider them. I also dint want to add to much colour in the box, i have seen some editors go a bit overboard, and it looks like the leftovers of a bender after eating mexican but more structurted, if you know what i mean. I am guessing for the horizontal lines, you talking about what the display "MAP" is in now, like a block? I'll put in some fixes, and dump and example for Dublin on the left. More comments welcomed, all examples can be seen here. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Per request, I'm commenting. I have no personal attachment to the citybox...just be aware that Irish wikipedia's cityboxes are designed after these. I've moved on, lads...Florida's where my focus lies now... ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 06:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Template:Infobox Ireland city could be used (and renamed and edited as appropriate) for the proposed template; this will have the advantage of giving "legitimacy" for a template as a lot of national templates are being depreciated and eliminated in favor of international templates. Simple colouring such as that in Template:Ireland county infobox could be ideal, with just the top cell (used for the name) having colour and horizontal and vertical lines to the minimum (used just to separate major sections like name, map and data)? Djegan 22:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well another waste of my time then. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what has your disagreement. If it is my suggestion that the Template:Infobox Ireland city should be used then maybe you have misinterpreted me; it would be ideal to use a template that already exists and is in use because this way we can check how it looks in articles, also we can edit it in any way that is neccessary (adding/removing rows/variables etc) to produce the required results. By creating a totally new template we risk a vote for deletion by someone insisting we use an already exisiting generic template such as Template:Infobox City. Djegan 11:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Becuase it seems your are backtracing on your idea. I mean if you want to go in the dirction that you seems to want to go into how, then mine as well not make any changes as all. We are just as much at risk of having it deleted in the current form, or in your proposed form, or in a irish place form. I dont see the non-standard city infobox being useful for the information that is presented in the articles currently. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to take this under consideration again. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So how should we proceed one template for counties, cities, provinces, towns; or two one for cities and towns and another for counties and provinces.? Djegan 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not go with what i was proposing before, would be a one for all. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed then, one template. Djegan 22:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you shure? =) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite sure, what it to be decided next? Djegan 23:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well i want to work out some kinks in it. Hopefully i can migrate it to it own page in the weekend. I dont want to dao anything drastic, just slowly float the change in. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok so i guess the new template is up and and live, it can be found at {{Template:Infobox Irish Place}}. I have went and started to use it, currently is only being used on the proviences, i would not recomend redirect the existing templates to the new one, first off the variable names are not totaly the same between the new one and the ones being currently used. Second the ones that use pin cors will have to be updated or checked, as the pin cords will change due to the layout being different. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I looks fine. I am thinking of adding a variable for the official city or county council website, so it can be in the infobox. Djegan 23:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i was considering that my self, i'll go ahead and put it in tonight. BTW i suspect that the template as well as the other ones will be uner atack by the so called "wheel wars" or something. Their seems to be a anti-hidden class faction now, and their going to various templates and making changes, the way i see it, if they want to maks such drastic changes they can discuss it first, also i have problems in the past with meta-templates and optional rows in tables, which templates are, being that you have to use half html and half wiki markup. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate if some contributors would like to help clarify matters and decide article content/fact presentation at Home Nations. See Talk:Home Nations and the article history to see the disputed content.

Further content and more accurate facts are probably also useful to bring into the debate.

This note has also been left at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board.

zoney ♣ talk 22:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The official name of "The Agreement" is not the Belfast Agreement. The term "Belfast Agreement" is only supported by the minority.

Secondly, the term Londonderry was only the name of the city till 1984. After that point the name was changed back to Derry. The county never had the name Londonderry, as it was solely the city that was awarded the Royal Charter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by -frosty- (talk • contribs)

The name of the city of Londonderry is still Londonderry. It was the name of the Borrough Council that was changed: "Londonderry County Borough Council" to "Derry City Council". --Mal 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. In these cases Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is the policy that is cited for the reason why they are where they are. You can check each articles talk page, for instance Talk:Derry, for the past debates and rationale.

Feel free to contribute but consensus is a big issue on wikipedia. Djegan 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Agreement's official name is the Belfast Agreement. A survey of usage for WP showed that both BA and GFA are used. However the GFA is more associated with the nationalist community, because some protestants don't use the name Good Friday for the day Christ died. (Some sections of Protestantism actually find the term offensive and believe it idolatrous to attach any significance to a day.) As BA is the official name, is used by both communities, and carries none of the potentially offensive name problems associated with GFA, BA fits the criteria for NPOV better than GFA, BA is the name used by WP (and many news organisations, for example, The Irish Times). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way Jt the section on Categories above I would welcome you opinion. Djegan 22:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add this stub to the stubs section on the main page i'd do it my self but it looked very complex. gaelic-sport-stub is the tag for it (Gnevin 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

Done. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)