Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

in most irish poltician pages, they have "assumed office" for both the date they win an election and they date they are appointed to a particular position in government or party, which is quite unclear...,

and often either one of the other dates are not filled in.

the info could actually be in these vertical timelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_South_Central_by-election,_1999#TDs

but the term needs to cleared up first, and does wikipedia have bulk editing?

i was hoping to scrape the info for a timeline, but even dbpedia uses termstart for both coming from wikipedia

they also use "in office" for past periods, but again there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of position taken/appointed to once elected.

so i guess im looking for the categories to split and defined more clearly across all irish politicians, whats the best way to get that done?

I also raised this here as it seems to apply for all politicians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#assumed_office_lack_of_clarity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostexpectation (talk • contribs) 12:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

elected vs position when elected. looking again i see in office is for past periods(two dates) but there still seems to be no distinction between dates and periods elected and time periods of position taken/appointed to once elected. some sub class of 'office' is what im looking for http://dbpedia.org/page/Brian_Cowen

I raised it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#elected_vs_positions_when_elected

Lostexpectation (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Sinn_Féin#Proposal_to_re-orient_SF_articles. Mooretwin (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads up, really neat new article National Graves Association, Belfast, but has major POV/tone issues with things like "to honor the sacrifices", "martyrs of the cause", etc. Interesting stuff, but needs a little work. Just FYI. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

These issues should be discussed on the article's talk page - see WP:NPOV dispute Hohenloh ⁺ 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No harm attracting other interested editor unaware of it. Fergananim (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mil 09 has also been making changes to Milltown Cemetery. I've started a discussion at the article's talk page, if someone could take a look. Some of the POV problems have been fixed, but the article still needs a lot of work. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently all nationalists are Nazis... ~ R.T.G 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new article about an Irish supreme court judge who seems to be famous at fly fishing. He was elected to the 4th and 5th Seanad on the university ticket and one of the top law prizes in Trinity is the TC Kingsmill Moore Memorial Prize. There is nothing but web reference on the article but perhaps someone can categorise it and maybe even add a picture or something. He is often quoted in British as well as Irish law and fly fishing expertise. ~ R.T.G 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Article on last nights match is up for AfD if any one cares to add their tuppence worth to the deletion debate GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I've recently re-worked Michael Scott (Irish_author) and the related pages for his The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel series pages, would you please stop by them and give them a lookover, upgrading them where deserved? I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement :) Thank you in advance! Zephfya (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a stab at organising the religion in Ireland articles:

• Christianity in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - new page that needs expanding
• Protestantism in Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - new page that needs expanding
• Religion in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - moved some info elsewhere, needs expanding

I will carry on with building the articles. There are numerous articles that can be tied into the overview articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Join the discussion at Talk:Derry#Opening of discussion for semi-protection of both city and county page. Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 19:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, move discussions are under way at Conradh na Gaeilge, Foras na Gaeilge and Seachtain na Gaeilge concerning whether they should be moved to the English language version of their titles. Please feel to join in these discussions. Tx, Snappy (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for drawing attention to this. Hohenloh ⁺ 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They are commonly known in English by those names, but should be translated alongside for non-gaeligori.Red Hurley (talk)

I realised that there's no article for Seisún, so created a very basic stub. Would appreciate any input into expanding the concept of "jam-session for traditional Irish music." This institution certainly seems common throughout the US and Canada. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There's already a comprehensive article at Irish traditional music session. No need for another one, IMO. Hohenloh ⁺ 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add the usual comments and extras.Red Hurley (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Surprised this wasn't done already. Pls load with images etc.Red Hurley (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposal to rename Families in the Oireachtas to Families in Irish Politics.

Discussion at Talk:Families in the Oireachtas#Requested_move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, a merger needs to be done on Leinster Junior Cup and Leinster Schools Junior Cup. I don't really know how to do it, anybody else want to do it? Or if not, any tips? Backbeatlistener (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all in WP:MERGE. --Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...or I could just do it myself :-) Scolaire (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Created a page for Ross Daly which is an Irish musician. Anyone likes to help. Kasaalan (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Ireland to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is really useful data. I notice we have a good few "Mid" and "Low" importance in the top 25 - do we need to rethink our priorities? There is also a good few "Start" and "C" class articles in the top viewed. I've been running though the Ireland article of late with a mind to getting it re-listed as a GA. Should we be systematic in our approach to improving articles? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the New Year, I thought I would advertise this again. I'm interested in establishing a local chapter for Ireland with the aim of doing off-line work to support Wikimedia and the Irish Wikimedia community. Bites have so far been low (and of the 'curious' type, which is good as so am I). Input, comments and energy of any kind would be very good and very welcome.

The page is on Meta: m:Wikimedia Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Must be Christmas! Enjoy;Red Hurley (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I recently came across List of Irish people in World War I, and tagged it with some WikiProject tags and am adding some names from Ireland and World War I, plus some other names I am aware of. It is possible that this list could either be merged with the article, or should be a category, so I'm dropping this note off here. There were three divisions that served in WWI, the Ulster one and the two Irish ones. I'm listing people from all three divisions in this article, though that may also need discussion. On a close look, the list also seems to be including those Irish who served elsewhere in the British army as well, and could conceivably cover others. The category is Category:Irish people of World War I. Not sure how to approach this, so any advice would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not worth starting a new section, and it is very similar material, but on a periodic trawl I do through WWI news stories, I found this - a review of The Soldier's Song, a novel by Alan Monaghan set during WWI and telling the tale of a young Irish soldier from Dublin. Just thought that might be of interest to anyone who was interested in the above post as well. Might even be worth adding a sentence to the article Ireland and World War I? Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While searching for something else I found this and later this in some archives. He doesn't appear to have an article and I know nothing about him. He may or may not pass WP:POLITICIAN. There is John Flannery and John Flannery (golfer). Perhaps someone can make use of them. --candle•wicke 01:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to invite anyone reading this to participate in a discussion over whether to use "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" or "Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" in the infobox on Martin McGuinness. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Martin McGuinness#"deputy" vs "Deputy". HonouraryMix (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please could someone have a look at Midlands Gateway ? The external links / refs seem to be very general or dead-links. Is this government project still current / in action ? thisisace (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know that Peter Canavan's article is a Featured candidate. Please keep up to date with the progress of it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Canavan/archive2 In particular, I need assistant with Alt text, becuase I had never encountered this before I submitted.--Macca7174_talk 09:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

All there is a flag related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#Proposed_change_flags_.28Modern_usage_only.29 which may be of interest to users here Gnevin (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me are these {{IrishM}},{{IrishR}},{{IrishA}},{{IrishU}},{{IrishL}} template terribly WP:POV laden. For starters there is the random flag for IrishN to the tri-colour on IrishR which some the organisation didn't use. Why is Cumann na nGaedhael and Sinn Féin on IrishM? There is also the random list of song on IrishN. These templates have no inclusion criteria, can they be saved or should they be taked to TFD? Gnevin (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the templates need some tweaks, but I fail to see how they're "terribly POV". I also fail to see the problem with the flags you removed. The "gold harp on green" (currently the "Flag of Leinster") has been an Irish nationalist symbol for hundreds of years. The tricolour has been an Irish republican symbol since it was first flown. ~Asarlaí 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Cumann na nGaedhael and Sinn Féin on IrishM? I agree the tri-colour,harp flag have been used by many of the organisations of the templates, however for some it was never used and I think it misrepresents some of the organisations on the templates and how these flags where used. By all means having a link to them but to have them so prominent is wrong in my opinion Gnevin (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that that a few of the groups didn't use the flag. The point is that those flags are the most well-known/commonly-used symbols of Irish nationalism/republicanism/unionism etc. The reason CnaG (1900–1905) and Sinn Féin (1905–1917) are on IrishM is outlined here. However, I think CnaG should be removed, since the article focuses on the CnaG formed in 1923, not the original. ~Asarlaí 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Every single thing on IrishM should be removed, as I said on the template talk page. None of the people, organisations, institutions or documents "advocated the establishment, preservation, or restoration of a monarchy as a form of government". Merely recognising, or even representing, the monarch doesn't make you a monarchist; merely not advocating a republican system of government certainly doesn't. Scolaire (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringign this up. I hate these templates and I am glad to see that I'm not alone. They struck me for some time as being a form of "gang marking" of articles. I recall the wrestle I had to remove the Republican "series" tempalte from the Amhrán na bhFiann article (a long time back).

None of them form a proper Wikipedia:Series and they should all be removed. In article links and See also would suffice in almost all cases and would be more appropriate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the templates are very useful, but IrishM really needs to go. Also, I'm sure you'll agree that IrishR is just too big. If you have a glance at its talk page, you'll see that myself and a few others have tried five times to make it more compact — each time these changes have been blocked by the same two editors. ~Asarlaí 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the templates represent a Wikipedia:Series. See the History of Brazil article for an example of what a series template should do. The templates above merely list random articles on theme. This is not anything new. They have been like this for years (but I suspect noone would do anything about it for fear of upsetting sensibilities). They all need to go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since they don't fit the definition of a "series template", why not just remove the heading "Irish Political History series"? Listing things on a specific theme is generally what navboxes are for. Hence, the articles listed in IrishN/IrishR/IrishU are there because they're linked to those political movements. There's nothing "random" about it. ~Asarlaí 20:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We've categories to list things on a specific theme. Navboxes group strongly related articles not a loose group of ideas that have no inclusion criteria Gnevin (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have emptied {{IrishM}} per my post above. I will leave it to others if they want to nominate it for deletion. I think {{IrishA}} should definitely go as well - it all looks highly dubious. If you are going to work on / propose deletion of the others, I recommend you leave {{IrishR}} until last. It is the only one of them that generates any passion - just how much passion can be seen here. --Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WIll nom these two now Gnevin (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishA and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24#Template:IrishM Gnevin (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The title has been changed to "Political movements in Ireland" to remove the word series ,however I think the new title doesn't make sense Gnevin (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense about the title "Political movements in Ireland" ? ~Asarlaí 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If the templates included links to Irish Nationalism ,Irish Republican etc. The it would be ok to use the title "Political movements in Ireland" but at the moment it makes no sense to say it. When it was part of a series it made sense . The best thing to do would be to replace the title with Nationalism, Unionism in Ireland or what have youGnevin (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid noted that they didn't fit the definition of "series templates", yet they had the heading "Irish political history series". So, I changed that to "Political movements in Ireland". Right below that heading is the name of the political movement and a link to its article (nationalism, republicanism, unionism etc). It's in big bold writing. I'm not sure what you're proposing here. ~Asarlaí 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Movement" is this sense has quite a narrow meaning. While "Republican movement" is a fairly well understood term, "Nationalist movement" is pretty well meaningless because nationalism has meant different things to different people and at different times. For instance, in the early 20th century both Republicans and Home Rulers would have come under the heading of "nationalism", as would SDLP and Sinn Féin today. I've never heard the terms "Unionist movement" or "Loyalist movement" so I won't even hazard a guess what they might encompass. Anyway, if they're not part of a series why do they need a title at all? Scolaire (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I don't want to appear to be canvassing, but Gnevin opened two TfDs - linked above - as a direct result of this discussion. It would be good if people who expressed strong views here would express their view there as well. Scolaire (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Same as above ,friendly notice Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_2 :IrishR,IrishU and IrishL Gnevin (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason you haven't nominated {{IrishN}} as well? To my mind it's worse than any of the other remaining three. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I missed it :). Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_3:IrishN and IrishRdocu Gnevin (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sound! Scolaire (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since all the templates have now been deleted, I think the least we can do is to make new categories for their articles. For me, the great thing about the templates was that they held everything related to X political movement in the one place. We no longer have that.
I suggest the following:

• Republicanism:
  • Category:Irish republicanism
  • Category:Irish republican organisations
  • Category:Irish republican publications
• Nationalism:
  • Category:Irish nationalism
  • Category:Irish nationalist organisations
  • Category:Irish nationalist publications
• Unionism:
  • Category:Unionism in Ireland
  • Category:Irish unionist organisations
  • Category:Irish unionist publications
• Loyalism:
  • Category:Ulster loyalism
  • Category:Ulster loyalist organisations
  • Category:Ulster loyalist publications

~Asarlaí 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest there is a need for

• • Category:Irish physical force republicanism
  • Category:Irish physical force republican organisations
  • Category:Irish physical force republican publications

Would the same apply to loyalism ?

The likes of FG,FF and Lab would all claim to be republican . In fact is there a party in the ROI who advocates a non republican form of government ? Gnevin (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Replacing the templates with suitable categories seems a good and reasonable idea. I would be cautions about over categorising though (and about appropriatly categorising). I'd suggest seeking the advice of someone who does a lot of categories-related work like User:BrownHairedGirl. -- RA (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Boyle Roche/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many biographical articles in which the subject is disambiguated as Irish Republican, for example Richard Barrett (Irish Republican), Thomas Bryan (Irish Republican), Simon Donnelly (Irish Republican), Seán Treacy (Irish Republican) etc., that is with a capital R, and many other that have Irish republican; Daniel Corkery (Irish republican), Charlie Daly (Irish republican), Liam Lynch (Irish republican), Rory O'Connor (Irish republican) etc., that is with a lowercase r. I have no idea which is grammatically correct but if we could choose one option and standardise on that. Snappy (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant article is Irish republicanism, so I guess lowercase. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view it should generally be lower case, unless the reference is to a specific "Republican" party or organisation (e.g. sometimes candidates stood in election under the "Republican" label). The same should apply to unionist, nationalist, and loyalist - generally lower case unless referring to a particular party or electoral label. It would be useful to get this agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also go with lower case as Mooretwin has described.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, in this incidence (since it is a specific "brand" of these -isms) I'd be inclined to use capitals (as opposed to the generic -ism) but it doesn't matter and a consistent style is better. So I support lower case for WP also. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone be so bold as to draft up a guideline? Mooretwin (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I added this to the MOS. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? Mooretwin (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#Biographical articles. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved all the upper case R articles to lower case r. Snappy (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello ! Sorry for my bad english — I'm french. I've two problems.

First, I transfer two copyvios I reported on Project:WikiProject_Northern_Ireland, because one doesn't concern Northern Ireland… I don't know how works copyvios here.

I was starting to traduce the part of Dromore, County Down dedicated to the cathedral, but I think it's a copyvio : the same text is present here and there, with only little modifications. The initial add of the text in wp is in 2008;

Same problem with the Kildare Cathedral, copyvio of kildare.ie…

Secondly, I need some illustrations for an article (in french) for the North Chapel in Cork. If some people there could take lots of photographies, it could be great!

Thanks a lot.

Nemoi is french, and he beg your pardon for all the stange things he certainly has told here at 03:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoi (talk • contribs) Hey, the bot, what do you think my last phrase is ? Nemoi is french, and he beg your pardon for all the stange things he certainly has told here at 14:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Nemoi is french, and he beg your pardon for all the stange things he certainly has told here at 01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to draw the attention of the WikiProject to the ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Dublin. In summary: {{Infobox UK place}} has the following four fields - |dublin_distance=, |dublin_distance_mi=, |dublin_distance_km=, and |dublin_direction= - should these be kept, or removed? Jack forbes (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal to create a single UK and Ireland infobox for settlements. The background to this is with respect to a field "distance from Dublin" that was added to {{Infobox UK place}} last year. {{Infobox UK place}} replaced {{Infobox Irish Place}} on articles relating to Northern Ireland in mid 2007.

I have raised a question on Wikiproject Northern Ireland about reverting to {{Infobox Irish Place}} on Northern Ireland articles but I am certainly not opposed to an single UK and Ireland info box. (I current think there are too many deficiencies in the UK one to do so. Those would need to be addressed first.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not add France or New Zealand too? Is the 900 Years War to be set aside just like that? [You don't seriously expect 'distance from Dublin' to survive in any NI or Welsh articles, do you - or distance from London in Irish articles]. --Red King (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on Template talk:Infobox Place Ireland. -- RA (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand anything to the copyvio process on that wiki… :’(

I think this very old diff by an IP is a copyvio from here, and that this page is copying the actual article of wikipedia.

What should I do? Nemoi is French, and he begs your pardon for all the stange things he certainly has said here at 16:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

According to this archive.org search, the text added to the article was online at Clare Library in early 2002, more than 3 year before it was pasted into the Kilfenora article ikn late 2005, so it is clearly a copyright violation. We remove such text from the article and may also make a comment about it on the talk page, as well as notifying the editor who added the text. ww2censor (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All WP:IMOS has recently been changed to include WP:IRISH FLAGS. There is a on going discussion at WP:RU which challenges this part of the MOS. Either the MOS is wrong and needs to be changed or WP:RU is wrong to attempt to add a flag. There is an open RFC here and your comments either way would be welcomed Gnevin (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently happening at the Irish American article around Scots Irish content--which also will affect the Scots Irish article; the discussion most definitely needs more participation and--most importantly-- editorial perspective rgardless of what yours might be. Please have a look there and share your thoughts as it affects both artioles and really needs much more input than what is being offered by too few contributors. Thank you 67.83.75.57 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Irish American Please see bottom of discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.75.57 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An issue has come up at Eric Dorman-Smith around his later allegiances. For those who do not know the subject, he was a British general during the Second World War who had a spectacular fall from grace. As a result of his disaffection with the British Army and the UK government and his political views, he later assisted the Irish Republican Army (1922–1969) during their Border Campaign. This raises the tricky subject of how to describe his "allegiance" in the infobox. Currently it is listed as United Kingdom and Ireland, a situation I don't think is ideal, for reasons listed on the talk page. Can any editors with experience or insight into this subject please comment at Talk:Eric Dorman-Smith? Leithp 11:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed when linking to Killeen Castle, Dunsany and looking at the Discussion Page the reference to WikiProject Ireland. I have just done a piece on the 'de Cusacks' which has been merged into 'Cusack' and wondered if this is of interest. I'm very new to Wikipedia!!! C.Cleeve (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello there! I am Cargoking. A lot of my work on Wikipedia is Irish television and radio linked, especially RTÉ programmes and people. I recently got The Frontline promoted to GA. I have also created a numerous amount of DYKs related to TV and radio.

Today, I am here to propose that, as part of WikiProject Ireland, and maybe in time by itself, an Irish Television, Radio and Film task force is formed. I think this is long overdue, as there are many articles relating to TV/Radio/Film that need to be created, and those that do exist, improved and featured. —  Cargoking  talk  10:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Great idea in principle ... but a great idea in practice only if there are enough editors to make a viable task force. I dunno what the convention is on these things (maybe 3 or more editors?), but maybe WP:COUNCIL has some advice.

Good luck, though. I do hope this task force gets off the ground, because while there are lots of articles on Irish radio & TV, many of the articles are in a rather messy unreferenced state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could some WikiIreland folks have a look at, and perhaps assist in the "discussion" going on regarding "Scots Irish American" content in the Irish American here Irish American article? (Its at the bottom of the discussion section) I believe that this warrants an inclusive dialogue based upon documented history rather than just a few POV pushers who would ideally like to dictate the content as it suits their interests. Thank you!—67.83.75.57 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's the second time you've posted that request here, and you've posted it to one other project talk page, four article talk pages and three user talk pages, but you yourself haven't contributed at all to the discussion at Talk:Irish American, as far as I can see. At least not from that IP address. What's the story here? Scolaire (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical population

Year	Pop.	±%
1821	2,152	—
1831	2,239	+4.0%
1841	2,425	+8.3%
1851	2,105	−13.2%
1861	1,994	−5.3%
1871	1,851	−7.2%
1881	1,789	−3.3%
1891	1,593	−11.0%
1901	1,509	−5.3%
1911	1,550	+2.7%
1926	1,532	−1.2%
1936	1,598	+4.3%
1946	1,565	−2.1%
1951	1,489	−4.9%
1956	1,540	+3.4%
1961	1,437	−6.7%
1966	1,425	−0.8%
1971	1,542	+8.2%
1981	1,805	+17.1%
1986	1,796	−0.5%
1991	1,791	−0.3%
1996	1,822	+1.7%
2002	1,744	−4.3%
2006	1,892	+8.5%
[1][2][3][4][5]

Some time back an Anon editor added these population templates to numerous Irish town and village articles. He refused to engage with other editors though his additions often destroyed the article layout. Eventually we added "state=collapsed" to all the templates, which appeared to solve the problem. But now the templates are appearing fully open again and the "state=collapsed" instruction appears to have no effect. Anyone know how to solve this? Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Might it be browser related (said he pretending he knew of what he spoke). What articles specifically are appearing this way? RashersTierney (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you some specific examples? I checked County Dublin, Kilkenny and Athenry and they are collapsed, so I don't see a problem in my small survey. ww2censor (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've come across numerous examples - can't remember them all but look at Gort and Cootehill. Sarah777 (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Both appear collapsed for me in Firefox (most recent). RashersTierney (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bandon, County Cork - folks, these are multiplying like triffids. Sarah777 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Again, no prob. here. RashersTierney (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Both appear collapsed from here, viewed both via Firefox 3.6 and MSIE 6. I think the issue must be your end, Sarah. --Yumegusa (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But...I'm using Firefox too! Sarah777 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's immaterial. The point is the problem is not at the WP end. --Yumegusa (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything is immaterial in a certain context. Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But when I switch to IE the problem disappears! Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

After being requested here, pictures can now be added to the infoboxes for Irish towns and villages. For an example see Athenry, and compare it with, say, Newtownmountkennedy. As I'm sure you'll agree, it looks a lot neater.

I hope to see this implemented on as many articles as possible. ~Asarlaí 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You just have to place the following additional code into the existing infobox:

  |static_image = (image name)
  |static_image_caption = (image caption)

In many instances it will improve the layout of many stubs where images on the left are intruding into the text. ww2censor (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't ya like it? Must say I do like a photo on top to reduce the impact of the map. RashersTierney (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is only at the audition stage (aren't we all!). I'd like a 2nd opinion / could someone consider AFDing it? See Fame: The Musical; it may fail Wikipedia:VAIN or WP:CORP.Red Hurley (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As we all know, Irish history has had its fair share of "ambushes" and "massacres". But there is no consistency on capitalisation, both in their article titles and within the articles themselves. So, I think it's about time we settle on one. The articles are listed below.

~Asarlaí 01:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arnon Street Massacre was recently moved to Arnon Street killings, while a proposal to move McMahon Murders to McMahon killings was rejected in favour of moving to McMahon murders. Allowing that redirects should exist from every plausible search term (so that McMahon killings should not be a red link), the article title should be the one preferred in reliable sources. That's most unlikely to be consistent across these groups of articles, but consistency is much over-rated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of either of these people before I found this but the court case claim which has been in Samson's article since at least January could do with a citation or it ought to be removed. --candle•wicke 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently, I have File:Patrick Street Cork2.jpg scheduled as POTD for St. Patrick's Day, and File:Daniel O'Connell2.jpg for March 24 (that being the anniversary of the signing of the Catholic Relief Act 1829), but it occurs to me that Daniel O'Connell, as an important Irish historical figure, might be better suited for the 17th, rather than some random street in Cork. Anyway, I thought I'd ask the opinion of our Irish editors. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you know of any suitable articles that have recently been created, or expanded five-fold, you can nominate them for the St Patrick's Day Did You Know? at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded for Saint Patrick.27s Day .28March 17.29. ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the Ireland article for good-article. I expect it will be reviewed in the coming weeks. The Ireland article is by far (and consistently) the most-visted article covered by the project and I feel it is a shame that what should be our flagship article is not even a good article. (It lost its GA status in October 2008.)

If others could help out in addressing the issues that arise from the review process I would be extremely grateful. -- RA (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that and I hope it's successful (I put in a lot of work on it at one stage). Hohenloh ⁺ 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged has been busy adding information on the Baronies of Ireland. While I applaud this effort, he has also been adding what I'd call too much information to the articles on towns and villages, for example here. I don't think that the information on neighbouring baronies and their chief towns adds anything to the village articles; thus it should be removed. The information on the county before the 1898 reorganization of Ireland may be of value, but I don't think a separate "notes" section is appropriate - if it adds to the village articles, it should either become part of a history section, or a half-sentence in the lead. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TOPIC addresses this issue directly. Its good to see the Irish Baronies articles again get some considered input and hopefully this is where future effort on the subject will be concentrated. Certainly they could be linked from village and town articles at a 'See also' section, or if referenced in a history section - but not at the lead of these articles - that would give undue weight to a relatively peripheral matter. RashersTierney (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged disagees with the above. Laurel Lodged, as a newcomer, has been accommodating to the views of older and wiser editors. Firstly, there were complaints that the additions were unreferenced. Detailed references were supplied. When complaints came in about this resulting in large volumes of detail in the main header, large volumes of detail about the baronies were removed from the header (while leaving the explanatory notes in the Reference section). For this action there is precedent and advice by another editor (SeoR) to do so. See the Castleknock article and discussion for proof of this. This left the main header with just 4 words referring to the barony. This has not satisfied the above contribotors. A further gesture, to take the explanatory, contextualising notes out of the References section and into a new "Notes" section was deemed "redundant". Which is it guys - too much, not enough, in the wrong place????

Doubt was also cast on the legal status of baronies. In the "Baronies of Ireland" article, such doubt was removed by supplying citations of statutes and statutory instruments. But even this has not stopped the carping. There's no doubt that the folk memory of baronies is dimming - all the more reason to have explanatory notes surely. Otherwise, the inclusion of even the 4 words will raise more questions than answers. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel as a newcomer that you have received anything less than a sincere welcome. However, please don't take differences of opinion on content as a personal slight. The main issue is that the Baronies articles be advanced in their own right and then linked to the towns and villages articles in an appropriate context. Baronies are mentioned in contemporary legislation solely as a means of disambiguation for mapping purposes, where several neighbouring townlands or villages might have the same or similar names. That does not imply that they continue to have any administrative character. Their interest is mainly historical and they should not be given undue prominence particularly at article leads. RashersTierney (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your bad experiences; that's not malice or a hidden agenda on my part. "References" should always be reliable secondary sources; they shouldn't just be footnotes or internal links. I had a quick look at Castleknock, and in my opinion the references need some tidying up. Especially the one mentioning all townlands in the barony (while the article is about the village of the same name) seems to be a stretch; it doesn't actually belong in the article on the village. Along similar lines I removed information on neighbouring baronies and on 19th century legislation concerning councils from articles on villages.

The "redundancy" issue is not directly related: A "see also" section had been created with a link to Baronies of Ireland. Per WP:ALSO, our guideline for such sections, they are for links that ideally should be mentioned in the article, but aren't. Since the articles in question (Bouladuff, Thurles, Templemore etc, all within the barony of Eliogarty), already contained either a mention of "barony", a link to barony or even a link to Baronies of Ireland, I just linked Baronies of Ireland in all those articles and removed the now-redundant "see also" links: Mention, link to "barony" and already a link to "Baronies of Ireland", for example.

Personally I'd prefer the barony information to be part of a larger section on history, but I'm not sure whether we have enough information on those villages to make such sections worthwhile. Until we have such a section, I don't really care either way whether we mention the barony in the lead or in a "see also" section, but both is surely unnecessary.

If the short mention of baronies raises questions, people can follow the link to find out more - that's why we have a wiki, after all. Huon (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made up a book of WikiProject Ireland featured articles (a bargain at only €20!).

I think it would be a nice idea if we could put together a Ireland-related books. What articles would be in it? Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland? What else? Culture of Ireland, Irish language, ... ? Any suggestions? -- RA (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the way you've put in FAs. What about some GAs? —  Cargoking  talk  22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of for another book. A "general" WikiProject Ireland book ... but what articles? How broad a range? How deep should we go e.g. would Culture of Ireland mean that Music of Ireland would be unnecessary? -- RA (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Curiously many images are excluded, even freely licenced ones from the Commons and I can't see any reason why. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? I didn't see any missing images - which ones? -- RA (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Too many to list. I did not take specific note but postage stamps had only two images, geography had few and U2 had none. I wonder how it decides what to include/exclude. ww2censor (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that in the PDF? I can see them all (in postage stamps at least, I didn't look at the rest). -- RA (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that instead of looking at "quality" as a criterion, you look at "importance"? The list of Top-Class articles has 40 articles of B-Class or higher which would make a good basis for choosing. Mind you, some of the ratings are bizarre. Declán of Ardmore is of top importance?? Rory Gallagher is top importance while James Galway isn't even in the project. But at least it would give you a handle. Scolaire (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. I would like a balance between "importance" and "quality", though. -- RA (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting observations. A balance between importance and quality seems like the way to go, even if you remove my FA (!) mid importance stamp article. James Galway is now in and I demoted Declán of Ardmore as being way off the criteria. Badly assessed and missing articles are some of the very reasons we need more editors prepared to assess Irish related articles based on the criteria laid out by the assessment team; and you come across some interesting topics while doing so. The two easy ways to find new Irish articles are; AlexNewArtBot's Irish search results (updated every few days) and the, now daily, Irish quality log listing all Project assessment related changes. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just done a test for correlation between page views, article assessment and our rating of importance against the 474 pages that had this data in February 2010 for WikiProject Ireland. These tests return a value (r) that runs from 0—±1 representing the strength of the relationship between pairs of numbers. If r=0, there is no relationship between the pairs. If r=±1, there is a perfect relationship between the pairs. A descriptive word to accompany ranges of r can be seen here.

The results are as follows:

• Page views → Assessment: r = 0.11868
• Page views → Importance: r = 0.19068
• Assessment → Importance: r = 0.14793

I also performed a visual check to make sure that there was no human-recognisable pattern that would be missed by formulas of this sort. There was none.

Thus, the relationship between page views, article assessment and our rating of importance for the 474 WikiProject Ireland articles that had this data in February 2010 can be described as being "very weak to negligible". -- RA (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean, is it good or bad? Hohenloh ⁺ 03:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It means there little or no relation between the importance rating we give to articles, the number of visitors to those articles and the quality of those articles. There's no reason that there has to be but you might expect that be a correlation between what we say is "important" and what readers actually read or between what we say is important and what we actually work on improving. The relationship between these three concepts right now is "very weak to negligible".

Maybe we should re-evaluate our ranking system for how we rate the importance of articles taking into account what readers actually read? Maybe, as a project, we should set about on a determined effort to promote our top-priority articles to GA or FA class? Currently only only 7 out of our 49 "Top" importance articles are GA or FA class - whereas 29 of them are "B" class. Or maybe something else (or nothing)? -- RA (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There are however some situations were there would be naturally no relationship between some of the three variables. For example, if all of our articles had the same rating (e.g. if all were FAs) then there would be no relationship between article quality and importance or number of page views.

FYI, I didn't count anything below C class (e.g. Start class articles) in doing the calculation of correlation above. -- RA (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! My photograph requests for the Ryanair and Aer Lingus head office buildings at Dublin Airport are still open. If anyone is in proximity to Dublin Airport, please come by and photograph the head office buildings for the articles! As noted in reliable sources, both buildings are close by to one another. In addition the head office of CityJet is in nearby Swords. It would be nice if someone would get that one too. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic Sites. I posted a message there a few days ago alerting the rest of the project that I had finished List of National Monuments of Ireland by completely table-izing the list and including all ~1000 monuments in the Republic of Ireland. I figured you guys would like to have some input on the matter at hand.

The list-article is about 69 kB long.. should it be split out into county lists similar to how WP:NRHP does with their lists? (i.e. National Register of Historic Places listings in Mississippi) I'm not getting much response from the main editor before me (or from WP:HSITES haha), so I turned to you guys. Should I just leave it, or what? Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work!

I suggest splitting it into by-county sections so that each county can have its own list categorised appropriately ... but then transcluding the by-county lists into the main list. That way we have both a national list and the county lists, but without any duplication of content.

I'm happy to do the split, if there's agreement to do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I like that suggestion as it creates manageable lists but keeps an overall list from which the reader can more quickly make comparisons. It's a good start, although lacking in references. BrownHairedGirl, have you done something like this before? If not, there's something similar in place for List of abbeys and priories in England which should give helpful pointers. Each list needs a lead and a reference section, so <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> tags were used to dictate what was transcluded. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When I originally read this suggestion, I liked it; however upon further examination of the test case (abbeys/priories of England), I'm not sure it's ideal. Many transclusions on a single page can slow load times down (the England list took nearly a minute to load here). I think the main point of splitting out lists such as these is to improve load times. This appears as if it would do exactly the opposite. Given the choice between the proposed solution and the status quo, I'm inclined to the latter. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dudemanfellabra, I think that the problem with List of abbeys and priories in England is not the transclusions (which are fairly simple job for the server), but the resulting size of the combined list, and the number of images in it. However, the best way to check something like this is to test it, so I'll do a trial of the split version in my userspace. Then I can move it across only if editors are happy that it works OK.

And yes, Nev1, I've done lots of this sort of stuff before. But thanks for checking :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Done

OK, that's done. We now have a List of National Monuments of Ireland which covers the whole of the Republic in one sortable list, and a separate list for each county (see {{National Monuments of Ireland}}). (Through some clever trickery, the by-county lists are combined to make the nation-wide list).

Tomorrow I will categorise the individual monuments in "National Monuments in County X" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Individual National Monuments are now categorised in the sub-categs of Category:National Monuments of Ireland by county. Looking through the lists, it's sad to see how few National Monuments actually have an article on them, or even a photograph. If anyone is looking for a chance to write lots of new content, the sea of redlinks in List of National Monuments of Ireland would be a great place to start. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Any help expanding the stub about the poem "Mise Éire" would be greatly appreciated! +Angr 12:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, {{Hiberno-English}} has been nomiated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the reference sections too long? Fergananim (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There is no article as such, and no in-line citations. A list of sources of itself is useless. Assuming somebody has read the sources, they should make an article (not a list!) of it, keep whichever sources are cited and remove the rest. Scolaire (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Irish genealogy" is not an article - it's just a list (which is a shame because a good article could be written on Irish genealogy (note to self), but this contribution is not it). Hohenloh ⁺ 06:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I have to start somewhere, and I am always soliciting other editors input. What you see is just the first draft. Fergananim (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how's about that then? Fergananim (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the article talk page. Scolaire (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland is currently scheduled to appear in next week's WikiProject Report in the Signpost. In an effort to increase the number of contributors, all active members of this WikiProject are invited to answer the interview questions located here. The more the merrier. Have a great weekend! -Mabeenot (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland#RFC: Irish history series. --RA (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#United Kingdom regarding junction lists used in UK road articles. As the same style of junction list is used in Irish road articles, input from Irish editors would be appreciated. Jeni ^(talk) 02:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project.

Here is an example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs

There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: /Unreferenced BLPs.

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you. Okip 08:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a very useful service, and I hope that this project does not opt out. I look forward to seeing the first listings, and I fear that a lot of articles will need attention. --11:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is now a straw poll at WT:ELG to decide on the proposed revision and renaming of WP:ELG. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This directly affects Irish motorway articles, which currently use the same style as is used on UK motorways. Under the proposed ELG these would all need overhauling. Jeni ^(talk) 10:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 10#Parishes_of_Ireland. This is a proposal to rename and restructure Category:Parishes of Ireland and its many subactegories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like an ideal opportunity to do a logical "grand slam". Much work has been done on the "Baronies of Ireland" category. The next geographical division is the Civil Parish, which this proposal would address. The final part is the townland. Now this is currently sandwiched uncomfortably between the Baronise and County categories. More confusingly, there are categories like "Category:Townlands of County Tipperary". I think that this latter category should be abolished. It should instead flow in a logical hierachy from greatest to least, that is, county, barony, civil parish and townland. This would involve the merging or re-location of several current categories. Thoughts anyone? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I submitted a GA nomination for Lurgan knowing that it was unlikely to pass, and following its failure and feedback I've gone ahead and made quite a few edits per WP:UKCITIES as advised. You may want to have a look, I'm thinking of renominating it for GA again but let me know what you think. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Update, Lurgan is now a Good Article! --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The following is a comment I have left on the user talk page for User:Mooretwin which may be of interest to other editors:

I'm curious. I made an edit at 23:50 on March 23rd to Talk:Northern Ireland giving you a friendly reminder to refrain from the kind of ad-hominem accusations that you were making against User:Iamstiff which, incidentally, I happen to think were in violation of WP:BITE. 36 minutes later at 00:26 on March 24th you're suddenly editing Lurgan, a page that you haven't edited in about a year, but one that I have made a substantial number of edits to in recent weeks in an attempt to get it up to GA status. Your edits were exactly the sort of thing that I was likely to challenge given our previous encounters on GAA-related pages, and sure enough I ended up challenging them. Care to explain your sudden interest in Lurgan and why you shouldn't be getting in trouble, this time for violation of WP:HOUND? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one to think that Iamstiff is a dodgy username? Scolaire (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you aren't the only one, Scolaire. I also had wondered as to the motive for choosing that particular username. Perhaps it's a case of wishful thinking rather than a positive affirmation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's deadly.Red Hurley (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: He's removed my comment from his talk page without responding to it. My verdict: Guilty of WP:HOUND. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Eamonn, there are places to go with a complaint like this. The WikiProject is not one of them. Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my next question. Where do I go? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The drama board. But, to be honest, I don't see it. --RA (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, on RTE today there is a story about some Euro opinion polls[1]. One of the things they say lower down the page is how many "Irish people have knowledge of CAP". I assume that it is something to do with subsidising farmers. Is it? There is nothing on Wikipedia that seems to fit and searching the web for CAP returns a lot of things. Anyone? ~ R.T.G 13:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Common Agricultural Policy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay I thought there was no article thanks ~ R.T.G 07:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Ireland infobox is great at helping identifying articles that need a photo. They are listed here Ireland articles needing images, however there is 5,500 articles. The link at the top right of that page allows you to view them with Google (didn't work for me) or Bing (worked). This was useful, but there is a catch to that as the geo coords for the article are required for that to be useful. Also, there are a lot of articles that are non geographic places such as people, etc.

This brings me to my request. Is there a way of sub categorising this list of articles? Is there a change required to the WikiProject infobox? DubhEire (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a category specific for people of Ireland: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people of Ireland. I doubt it is possible to add additional parameters to the project assessment template that could distinguish between images required for geographical purposes as opposed to biographic, or other topic, images but I will ask some more knowledgeable editors. However, I would not like to update or review those 5,500 articles. ww2censor (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely it could be done by adding different options for the "image-needed=" part of the template? Have "yes" go into the standard category we have now but have options to include the page into other categories (such as people or places). If this was done I would be willing to go through a few articles each day from the main category and change their category as needed. I think this is a really good idea that's been suggested so I hope it gets executed. aineolach (u · d · c) 06:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Did I say infobox, I meant to say template as you picked up on. Perhaps what needs to happen here is a way of grouping together the categories the article is assigned through normal article categorisation and distinguish those with the "image-needed=yes" criteria. Or does the WikiProject Ireland template require some simple categorisation of its own, e.g. people, places, events, government, commerce, flora, fauna, etc. A bit of work but over time the benefits would be great. Anything that would make it easier to move articles along, or find Ireland articles that could be adopted. This could be good. DubhEire (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I should have paid more attention to what Ww2censor said, as there is a way to categorise a photo request for different categories, Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs_in_Ireland . The job now is to agree categories, or at least to do certain ones. Just do people and places for now. I would like to get the county too. This kind of crosses over with the list of missing geo coords, but that is tagged in a different way. That tag in most cases identifies what county the article is in. So, when looking at an article to see if it needs a picture, it may need geo coords too. I think you guys have cracked it. DubhEire (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that if you tag a Talk page with {photoreq|in=Ireland} that will put into the list of Ireland articles requesting a photo. It looks like if you place {photoreq|in=Ireland|County Dublin}, that would enable creating a category under Ireland. For people it is {reqphoto|people of Ireland|people of France}, and notice that this one I took from the first article in the list. It has two categories. I don't know how to show code examples, so I just dropped off a curly bracket on either side. DubhEire (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see that arises from this discussion is that two different approaches are being thrown up; refining the parameters within the photo-needed criteria of the project assessment template and adding more subcategories to the separate photo-request tag. The former is already heavily populated and a large majority of new article get tagged, if not fully, with the project's assessment template, while the photo-request categories require an additional template to be added to each talk page and as it stands there categories are heavily underpopulated with only 129 articles tagged compared to 5,500+. If we can define the categories needed and it could be incorporated within the project's assessment template, I think this course would bring a better result overall and avoids two separate templates that contain photo request parameters. ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on that. I tried 3 examples out on the reqphoto template and I noticed a problem where there isn't a way to tell apart articles tagged with image-required=yes and photoreq|in=Ireland. As the later would fill up, the former would remain static. A change to the WikiProject Ireland template would be better. DubhEire (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to track down a template guru to help us but I see some references to template use of some whatif type code, so it may be possible to narrow the possible category listing. Perhaps if a a geo coordinate is present the article might then be listed in a geographic photo category and if an article contains a person infobox, it would be listed in a biographic photo category. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this could be trivially implemented by changing the following line in {{WikiProject Ireland}} from:

 |NOTE_1_CAT         = Ireland articles needing images

to

 |NOTE_1_CAT         = Ireland articles needing {{{image-type|}}} images

You'd still need to set {{{image-needed}}} to yes to enable this, and you'd only be able to support one type of image per article, but if that's all that's needed then this would work well. A more complicated approach could be built from that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this looks simple to me. It would be good to have some thoughts on which categories would be most useful, to ensure that the template can produce them. Warofdreams talk 09:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that will work on the normal editors side of using the template. However, the categories are People / Places that sort of thing. Is it possible to start off with just a small number of categories and extend with time. A presume by default, they will all be lumped together as is now. So, the main thing is to try and identify places and people as they are the most achievable for the moment. DubhEire (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Warofdreams and thumperwardfor getting in on this so quickly. As mentioned briefly above, do you think there is a way of using a "whatif" type parameter/code to look at an article's template use and thereby determine the category it should be in, otherwise each article, of which there are now 5,500+, would need to be reassessed manually. I have been actively assessing Irish articles for nearly three years when there were 1,000+ articles assessed and now there are 31,000+. It is time consuming work, so any possibility of automation or even semi-automation would help greatly because there are few editors actively assessing Irish articles. ww2censor (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, could be easily done with a switch statement. Fancy coming up with a list of suggested sub-categories, and I'll see if I can cook up a sandbox? Unsure what you mean by your suggested automatic categorisation. Surely the type of image an article needs is an editorial decision? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely. If an article contains geographic coordinates or place template, then it is obviously a place or location and needs to be categorised as a place needing a photo, while an article containing a person template would automatically be a biographic photo request. Others may be more difficult to determine or categorise and would likely require an editorial decision. People of Ireland and Places in Ireland exist and are the two most obvious initial sub-categories. ww2censor (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page templates can't infer things from articlespace; indeed, I don't think there's a way to allow for the categorisation to depend on anything except paramters explicitly passed to {{WikiProject Ireland}}, and that doesn't presently include details like "this is a geography article" or "this is a person article". That means that it's not possible to sub-categorise these requests on existing pages without editing the talk pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone from this project could take a look at Category talk:Rivers of County Dublin. Over the past year, this page has been turned into a strange talk page/list article hybrid, complete with a references section at the bottom. This clearly is not what talk pages are for. Since I have no particular knowledge about Irish rivers, I'm hoping someone involved in this wikiproject could create a proper article, perhaps using the information already collected on the category talk page. Then the talk page can be blanked and become a proper talk page again. --RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No way. This looks like a Herculean task. Only for river anoraks - or should that be waders? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've asked at WikiProject Rivers also; maybe someone there will be up to the challenge. --RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it on. The page that has developed is fascinating. I think a Rivers of County Dublin artice is justified, with links off to those (few) watercourses big enough to warrant their own pages (there are a few such now). SeoR (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 618 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Chalk me up for 1. OK it was the easiest - Joseph O'Connor - but every little helps! :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dia dhuit!

I write in Russian Wikipedia article about rail transport of Ireland. Now I finish the list with the names of stations for themselves. In preparation for writing his name in Cyrillic relied primarily on traditionally adopted the name in Russia and the names in the maps of General Staff of Russian armed forces. When these names were absent - to use Russian-language forums in Ireland and the search for various items. At the very least to his knowledge of phonetics - English and adapt to the Irish.

But I still remain doubts about the accuracy of the transfer of Irish names on Cyrillic.

I asked if some of the user native Irish in this project are good know in Russian(Unfortunately, I can not say this about myself, that I know well English (can read but not write - I use Google Translator) and, especially, Irish), check my list and all the comments on writing what you think on the talk page this list.

Another request. Not so long ago looking articles on geography of Scotland, saw a category on Wikimedia Commons: Scottish Gaelic sound files. If anyone from the native Irish there will take time, you could begin creating a similar category for toponyms of Ireland? This would be a good addition to articles in all language sections of Wikipedia. Including on the subject that I do.

Sincerely, Зелёный Кошак 12:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Mount Herbert Hotel was just created by a clear WP:COI/WP:ORGNAME violator. Nonetheless, it appears to me that it could be notable. Anyone care to clean up this article, or delete it if it's not valid? Thanks. — Timneu22 · talk 14:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Google Maps have refreshed the database for Geo Tagged Wikipedia articles. Well done, the hard work is paying off. Finding articles about Ireland is getting better for everyone. On saying that, I noticed a few things missing and a few things that are still on old coords. Nevermind, looking forward to the next refresh. DubhEire (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I had (and still have) a suspicion that the database that holds the coords to articles is maintained by a wikipedia project and not Google. I haven't been able to figure that out yet. Anyway, getting clicking on those links.DubhEire (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Last August, I proposed to make a bot request to edit to all Irish towns and villages (i.e. everything in Category:Towns and villages in Ireland by county). The purpose of so doing was to roll out the {{Irish place name}} template and mark Irish settlements lacking Irish translations as needing one.

This was met with approval at the time. However, I got side-tracked by the idea of bots and so wrote my own framework for writing them. Now, I'm back with my bot in tow hungry to crank it up in anger.

Is the proposal still OK? If so I will go an implement the script to do it. (The first step before actually asking for formal permission of the BAG before doing it.)

--RA (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've recently rewritten and upgraded the entire Larne gun-running article which had failed many Wiki guidelines and would like someone to independantly assess and class the article please. The article i believe meets many Wiki guidelines though does still have a issue as stated by me on its discussion page. Northern Star ^(talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tuskar Rock is off Wexford, not Scotland. Or is that the name of a ship? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your correct, i made a boob when checking my sources - though just checking over the article, the rest of it is still correct. Northern Star ^(talk) 10:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For assessment, you need to make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. --Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Laurel, you've got a sharp eye for details. I did a Google and couldn't locate any Tuskar Rock off the Scottish coast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

She does indeed. I did the same and couldn't find any lol. Ah well helps make the article that bit more accurate :-) Oh and thanks Scolaire. Northern Star ^(talk) 11:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that most of the assessment team are gone AWOL, so I tend to be the only active member for now, I will save you the bother of asking over there. I have uprated it from a Start-class to C-class for now. I don't know why both references and notes as inline citations are being used when they are generally interchangeable so I would advise combining them unless you have a really good reason to keep both. Reference 1 is broken, so that needs to be fixed. ww2censor (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Was told to include page numbers and reading Wikipedia:CITE it appeared the best way to do it. However i've decided to merge them into one. The reference thing is fixed - it was just a tag that managed to get past the upgrade. Every book reference now includes the page it is taken from. Northern Star ^(talk) 13:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know what the difference between {{lang-ga}} and {{lang-gle}} is? I came across the latter today. It's only linked from 200-250 pages. Unlike the former {{lang-gle}} is unprotected. Should we just fix those instances to use {{lang-ga}}? --RA (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

They look identical. {{lang-ga}} links to around 2,700+ pages and should no doubt be the only used template. ww2censor (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

From late 2007, and especially in 2008, a massive drive by a few editors took the WP Ireland assessed article count from around 1000 to 5000 to over 20000 (and now over 31000). At that time, the aim was inclusion, and good assessment of unassessed material - and all of the (at least slightly) expanded "workforce" have no doubt continued to keep an eye out. But one task we discussed then - the eventual making consistent of at least the highest priority items - we have not yet come to, and I have seen it touched on lately (in at least two discussions). And there are indeed some strange items - Ryanair as Top (a very fair High, but Top in relation to the breadth of Ireland?), or Eleanor McEvoy, while Irish Language not - that latter I have been brave and fixed but this process needs diverse hands.

I propose, and I think this could be taken as a "June task" that we:

• Handle Top: decide approximately how many articles should hold this status (including very few people, for example), and then review all existing Top items, placing some more appropriately, while checking and where needed uprating major topics
• Review all existing High items, placing some more appropriately, while checking and where needed uprating major topics

It will not always be easy, as some things (History, Geography, etc.) are obvious for Top, but what of sub-topics of those, or sub-sub-topics- sometimes yes, sometimes High is more appropriate (while I think Top should be roughly a finite number - 50,60, 100, I think High should be a percentage of the total).

As always, there are not so many active and experienced editors - of late, for example, due to family and work demands, I'm mostly monitoring, dealing with new issues and some vandalism, etc., but I think that this is an important task for the credibility of the ratings, and will also help in getting people to focus on article improvement (it is not good that a majority of Top items are B, and 49 out of 57 B or below.

Are there volunteers for this? SeoR (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Especially below Top, the task could also be sub-divided - Geographic issues (the tricky ranking of towns, for example), People, Cultural, Economic... SeoR (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The assessment department's importance scale is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Importance assessment and the article types were sub-divided there though it may now be necessary to add some new divisions. The importance scale was discussed at the time the guidelines were set up here, here, here and here, but since that time the number of editors actively assessing has dropped off. Perhaps the top and high importance criteria should be revised based on the number of articles that have now been assessed. The assessment department could certainly do with some new volunteers. ww2censor (talk)

Agreed (and in the meantime, I will try to be more active too). And good to have those links to past discussions. My main proposal for now is (especially as some ratings were "inherited" from before the big assessment push, or set by those less (or not) involved in the Assessment Dept. or even Project (based, remembering some debates, on vague ideas that a topic was "important", and being in WP was not enough) that we actively review Top and High to ensure they are consistent and reasonably appropriate. As the number of assessed articles has been relatively stable for a long time, I think we are in a position to judge what Top and High should contain now (referring in part to a couple of those past discussions). SeoR (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the seemingly permastub nature of many of the articles in the Category:Electoral wards of Belfast with many of them seemingly doomed to go no further than "X is a ward in Belfast" I'm proposing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Northern_Ireland#Merging_Belfast_wards_into_one_article to merge most of them into one article. I'd appreciate comments there in order to centralise any discussion. Valenciano (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A thread has been opened at here about use of Irish-language places names on Northern Ireland articles. --RA (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fenian dynamite campaign is a recently created article. It's a worthwhile article but it has copyvio issues (see the talk page). If anybody is interested they might knock it into shape. Scolaire (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it a real campaign of a neologism campaign? I believe it has merit if it has individual and distinct status as such, otherwise if should be merged with the major "fenian" issues of the day. Several of the "See Also" articles have nothing to do with time-period and should be excluded. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a real campaign all right. Strange thing is, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in either the Fenian or the Irish Republican Brotherhood article! I don't want to do any large-scale editing myself, I just wanted to notify people in case there was somebody who fancied having a go. Feel free to remove any or all articles from "See also". Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There is now an article on denominational education in response to some edits on Iona Institute. Although these edits ([2],[3]) were good faith, they introduced MOS:OPED and WP:POV, perhaps even WP:SOAPBOX in relation to denominational education (and WP:OR in comparing the logo to that of humanist organisations).

Given that the usual terminology in Department of Education is denominational education it seemed better to use that than more emotionally loaded terminology.Autarch (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is now an open RM atTalk:GAA (disambiguation) Gnevin (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In light of disagreements above, neutral editors views are needed in regards to issues revolving around Northern Ireland countys relation to Ireland as a whole. So i have submitted a request on the NPOV Discussion Board. Please add to it your own viewpoints and reasons for them so that the NPOV board members can get a whole picture. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added my own viewpoint re forum-shopping. --Scolaire (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not forum-shopping as we don't have concensus and in following Wiki procedures on lengthy and prolonged content disputes that agreement can't be reached on there are steps to be taken. I.e. the above NPOV discussion board, mediation committee and if needs be arbitration. As it seems that people not in favour of 32-counties must make concessions with nothing being given anything in return especially on such a topic that can be troublesome isn't fair or right. A concession was made for both parties in regards to County Londonderry and Derry City. I'm seeking neutral views to see what people outside of this discussion think. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just came across the list of baronies in the County Down article (and the other Northern Ireland county articles, all added in by Superfopp). Can the agreement we've reached in IMOS be used here? Searching Google for the exact term "Uíbh Eachach Íochtarach" (Iveagh Lower) and i only got 25 results - only Wikipedia, mirror sites, and no surprises Logaimn.ie actually use Irish forms, probably as it isn't in the Republic of Ireland and have no official Irish form in Northern Ireland. Can derive tags be used in these instances seeing as its virtually the exact same issue as placenames? Wait that sounds silly as barony names are also placenames.

For example rather than the current way as imposed by Superfopp:

• Iveagh Upper, Upper Half (Uíbh Eachach Uachtarach, an Leath Uachtair)

We use the new agreed convention (i haven't use the derive tag for this as i couldn't find out its meaning at present):

• Iveagh Upper, Upper Half (from the Irish: Uíbh Eachach)

Mabuska ^(talk) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would probably fall under the new IMOS, which (obviously) wasn't around when those edits were made.

You may also want to look at List of baronies of Ireland, as editors have added the Irish names to that article too.

Also, a lone editor can't "impose" things on Wikipedia.

~Asarlaí 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Uíbh Eachach was not subdivided into baronies in Gaelic times, so "Uíbh Eachach Uachtarach, an Leath Uachtair" is a neologism. UE was divided into areas like Glasquirin, Lequirin, and so on, if we must have the traditional Gaelic names of the place.Red Hurley (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Would sub-divisions of Uíbh Eachach be better placed in a stub-article for the barony? I intend to create stubs for all the Northern Ireland baronies, and such information can be added into them to give some historical context to them. As this issue os on lists, would a derive tag suffice just to show the Gaelic origin of the name, i.e. Iveagh, or nothing at all and leave it to the stubs? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Does these articles need some form of protection? With the Bloody Sunday Inquiry releasing its' report so soon, there will be a lot of edits - given the nature of politics in Northern Ireland there are bound to be more than a few attempts at vandalism. Some will be attempts at whataboutery and others will be defacing the articles. At the very least a few more people should add them to their watchlists.Autarch (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i think they should be protected to some degree to prevent what could be a prolific period of vandalism and the like. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. ~Asarlaí 13:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the whataboutery? We all knew what happened. The northern republicans had to have a report with a crown on the front, that's all.Red Hurley (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean just like they have to have the crown in their pockets (i.e. pound coins)?? Harmless joke no offence meant if anyone takes any. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No no before you worry i'm not going to contest there use - rather just state that i've uploaded newer versions of the island of Ireland county maps. Superfopps had too pale a colour to show the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in clearly distintive colours - so i created ones with stronger colours. I would rather have uploaded a new version to the original county maps names, but i couldn't find a way to do so over at WikiCommons. I couldn't even find a way to upload a new version of Superfopps there so i was forced to upload them under a new name.

The only benefit of the new names is that they are along the lines of the originals; i.e. County Antrim etc, and are in the same PNG format rather than the JPG format of Superfopps. Also it removed the anti-concensus naming protocol used in regards to [[File:Ireland location Derry.jpg]]. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I also disliked the new colour scheme, although the new maps were good idea. I don't think new (adds: meaning the one above) scheme is necessarily an improvement though. It just emphasises the difference (no bad thing) whereas a common colour pallet for maps on Wikipedia exists. The common pallet has the advantage of having using relatively soft and complementary colours, common across the encyclopedia and avoids colours with political associations.

The scheme does not give a strict answer to this particular problem (since we cross a political border in this instance) but can be adapted. I suggest we follow the convention like this:

•   County
•   Area inside of jurisdiction in which the county is located
•   Area outside of jurisdiction in which the county is located
•   Area outside of Ireland

And that we follow the border colouring scheme described there. If needed, Mabuska, I can make up SVG maps using these colours.

I have also been working privately on several SVG maps of Ireland with a mind to updating the Ireland place template. I also had a quick fix to make these work with the current Ireland template without updating the push pin data on the Ireland templates (the template uses an older form to what is now standard). I'll open a discussion on that on the template page later this evening. --RA (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the new colour scheme either and would prefer a softer pallet, I would therefore support the suggestion put forward by RA. Bjmullan (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I chose light pink and light green because they matched the "magnified" maps — compare [4] and [5].

I would prefer if we kept using pink and green, and if most editors prefer darker shades then we should use Mabuska's maps.

~Asarlaí 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That colour pallette isn't a bad idea RA, it would make the maps fit in better to the maps used on other Wiki-maps. Can you draw up a map for a county and post a link to it so we can see what it looks like? I thought mine looked quite nice and did a good job but if there is a common scheme for them that looks good i'm up for it i guess. Mine used the same dark shade (or near enough) used to highlight the county as the last ones did and just lightened them up for the rest of the counties not highlighted. The colours used were the colours already in use just different strength - the last ones were too pale to be distinctive. I must give credit to Superfopp for using better maps than the county maps previous to his which had wierd unrealistic boundaries. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Irish Labour Party, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and expanded the article . It still needs copyediting to fix the Style but I would like to know about copyright and which images are fair use to help improve the article. Please comment on the talk page. Thanks Mrchris (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion here on moving the following articles:

• Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland) → Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968
• Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 (Ireland) → Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968
• Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1986 (Ireland) → Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1986
• Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992 (Ireland) → Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992
• Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 (Ireland) → Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001
• Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001 (Ireland) → Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2001
• Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 (Ireland) → Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002
• Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 (Ireland) → Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008

I'd appreciate input from some more contributors to move the discussion forward. Please have a read of the various arguments first if you plan to jump in.

Iota (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody with a good grasp of Irish history may want to go and fact-check History of County Kildare. The article was created in 2006 by a user who was indef-blocked shortly afterwards, was entirely unsourced at that stage, and has seen little substantial improvement since. I just stumbled across a few bits in there that were a total irredeemable mess of misinformation ([6], cf. Talk:History of County Kildare#Questionable contents). If the rest of the article is as bad as that paragraph, there's quite some cleanup to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly does this mean: "is one of the traditional counties of Ireland". They have been added to the article of every county on this island by Superfopp. It came back to my attention when he reverts people who try to change it away from where he has decided to place it - right after the declaration of the county name.

So as County Londonderry is virtually the last county to be created and not until the 17th century how can it be referred to as traditional? My issue with this is that its unsourced and practically pointless as what sources state what constitutes a traditional county and what makes one not?

It currently reads as: "County Londonderry or County Derry is one of the traditional counties of Ireland. It is located within the province of Ulster and is part of Northern Ireland. It was named after its main town, Derry (from Irish: Daire meaning "oak wood"[2][3]), which lies in the north-western corner of the county." I think the lede for each county should rather read along the lines of: "County Londonderry or County Derry (from Irish: Daire meaning "oak wood") is one of the six counties of Northern Ireland, and part of the province of Ulster.". Its less cluttered, avoids nonsense, and is to the point.

Seeing as these are probably undiscussed additions by Superfopp, and no doubt as i'd probably be reverted if i changed them, i would like to ask which seems more reasonable and whether i can have a concensus to change them. The bit about being named after the county town can be included afterwards however for this specific county please read the following:

Superfopps lede is also controversial as County Londonderry isn't named after Derry but rather London+Derry as we all know - and as far as we can tell the city and county of Londonderry both came into being simutaneously when the charter was granted by King James I - though in reality the county was created before the new city was even built. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Today, the 32 counties are generally seen as the "traditional" counties. North Tipperary, South Tipperary, Fingal, South Dublin and Dun Laoghaire are generally seen as purely "administrative" counties. That is reflected on all the relevant Wiki articles. I know this is hardly scientific... but if you were to ask people on any street in Ireland "how many counties are there?" I'd be putting my money on the answer being 32 rather than 35.

However, if there is a consensus to remove "traditional", I wouldn't have a problem with that.

As for the order of words... I think it makes more sense to say "County X is one of the counties of Ireland and is within the province of X" before mentioning the state. The counties and provinces were created long before the two states were born.

~Asarlaí 01:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I would favour removal of "traditional". Scolaire (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Scolaire. It's not neccessary and if retained would be open to the widest misinterpretation that is possible here at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Superfopp the provinces may have been created long before the birth of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, however they are purely historical with little real use in modern governance if any. I believe the lede should start off stating the county, its origin with a derive tag if applicable, and what country it is a part of. After that any other associations such as historical province can be stated. That is generally how the ledes of Irish settlements start and keeping them all to the same standard would be better and less troublesome. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Other than the removal of the word traditional, what do you all think of the lede as how i suggested rather than the way it is currently in the way Superfopp has positioned its wording? Looking at the revision history of the Northern Ireland counties, for example County Antrim it was long kept as: "County Antrim (Contae Aontroim in Irish) is one of the six counties that form Northern Ireland (United Kingdom). It belongs to the province of Ulster." from its creation in September 2002 until the May 2009 when Superfopp changed it - albiet throughout the 7 years there were slight variations but still along the lines of what i'm proposing. For a while it also included the nice tidbit of - "It is the 9th largest of the 32 traditional counties of Ireland in terms of area, and 2nd in terms of population behind Dublin and its actual size".

In fact this was better wording i believe:

“

County Antrim (from Irish Aontroim 'solitary farm') is one of six counties that form Northern Ireland, and one of nine counties that constitute the Province of Ulster. It is the 9th largest of the thirty-two traditional Counties of Ireland in terms of area, and 2nd in terms of population behind County Dublin. It was named after the town of Antrim.

”

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Traditional should probably go, as there is no way County Londonderry is a traditional county of Ireland. I also think we really need to stop treating Northern Ireland as if it's part of a different country. It keeps giving massive undue weight to the respective articles through an implication that it is part of and the same as the other state on the island when they just happen to sit on the same landmass. I know the politics are complex, but the reality is it really isn't any different to pretending the United States and Canada are part of the same the way Wikipedia keeps implying that Northern Ireland and the Republic are part of a larger whole. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go along with the quote below and omit all references to traditional. I'd also omit both inter-state and intra-state population comparisons. Just state the county population baldly and leave it at that. Anyway, seeing as County Wicklow was not completed until the very end of the 17th century, it could hardly be sdaid to be traditional. If you really want traditional, you'd have to go back to the ancient Gaelic tuatha. And that my friend is not somewhere that you want to go. Traditional is too emotive and too fluid - let's not go there.

“

County Antrim (from Irish Aontroim 'solitary farm') is one of six counties that form Northern Ireland, and one of nine counties that constitute the Province of Ulster. It was named after the town of Antrim.

”

Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick bit of Googling brough up refs for it, for example:

"The term 'All-Irish' is in common use for many cultural, sports, and other purposes, and many events, competitions, and organizations are 'All-Irish', that is, they cover the entire area of the 32 traditional counties of the island and not just the Republic of Ireland." World and Its Peoples, 2010

"The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." - Robert A. Faleer, Church Woodwork in the British Isles, 1100-1535, 2009

Adding it to every county seems a bit much; but adding it to those counties that no longer serve an administrative function (e.g. County Tipperary) doesn't seem too bad, if it was thought necessary. In the case of County Londonderry, though, I don't really see the point. In the case of County Dublin (which has been since been sub-divided into smaller counties), it might make sense.

@Canterbury Tail - "...it really isn't any different to pretending the United States and Canada are part of the same the way Wikipedia keeps implying that Northern Ireland and the Republic are part of a larger whole."

When talking about states and state politics, that holds up very well. But all the world does not revolve around states and state politics. For most things, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are treated as part of a larger whole because reliable sources treat them so - and with good reason. That is how religion is organised on the island of Ireland. That is how sport is organised on the island of Ireland. How else would you treat history or geography or music or anything very much beyond the functions of the state?

Saying that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland do not form a whole is like saying that Scotland or England do not form wholes. The larger whole that the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland form is called, Ireland. Go visit a library, you will find many book on the topic.

--RA (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough I do know the politics and nature of the situation, but constant treatment of Northern Ireland as a special case and uniting it with the rest of the island in seemingly all articles is very misleading. Yes I know GAA, some religion and many other organisations etc use the island as a whole, but that's not a reason to make the implications across the entire encyclopaedia every time NI is mentioned, as seems to be the case. I get that many editors want it to be united into a whole, strangely enough I do really get that. In almost every other area of Wikipedia things are organised by country/state, not landmass. Ireland seems to be the only real exception when there is no real reason for it to be so. Music should be by state etc, as that's the way it's treated elsewhere for the sake of consistency. Canterbury Tail talk 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Do assume good faith. It's nothing political and has nothing to do with anybody's opinion about any possible future political arrangement for any part of Ireland. It is merely that it would require too great a deliberate and careful manipulation of words and too stubborn an approach to most topics in order to treat the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland separately when even the Orange Order is an all-Ireland institution.

"Ireland seems to be the only real exception when there is no real reason for it to be so." - Reliable sources and a neutral point of view are the reason. We need look to nothing else.

"Music should be by state etc, as that's the way it's treated elsewhere for the sake of consistency." - The world was not created with Wikipedia in mind. Irish music is no exception. That is how it is treated in reliable sources. That is how we treat it here.

--RA (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New section for this discussion

I agree with Canterbury Tail in his statement, however can we please keep this on topic and not let it descend into warring. I know there is an on-going problem with some editors trying to gradually make Northern Ireland articles fit into an all-Ireland framework or create a sense they are. However the only reason why Northern Ireland keeps getting easily pushed into an all-Ireland framework is that they were once (note the past tense) united, and also the fact they share a small island. However we must try to prevent such potentially subversive additions with prose that is accurate and uncontroversial which is why i brought this issue of Superfopps county edits up and to form a concensus to revert them so he can't continually revert them back to his way. In fact any radical or potentially controversal changes to the county article ledes should be sought by concensus first.

The following proposed by Laurel Lodged, and by myself above it (minus a sentence) i think is the best way to go, especially as Northern Ireland is politically distinct from the Republic of Ireland and that distinction should be kept without potential subversive extras. Any organisations or connections that work on all-Ireland framework can be discussed in that organisations/connections article or section on the county page. Declaring the province of Ulster however i believe can be allowed to bypass that.

I also agree with RA that the word traditional could be used for the County Tipperary and County Dublin articles where they no longer technically exist but still do for many things. However for any others its pointless. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought the problem was "traditional county" rather than "county of Ireland" (that's why I originally responded to CT in small text). Some (inter-related) issues I'd have with the above:

• "County Antrim" did not derive from "solitary farm" in any language. Being a Mayoman I can never help screwing my eyes when someone says that County Mayo means "county of the plain of the yew trees" ... WTF? You have to wonder if the person saying it has ever visited the place! Like the text says, County Antrim was named after Antrim just like every other county was named after a place (then) of note within its bounds.
• For the counties (in contrary to our discussion on the IMOS page), I'd have give Irish name straight out (no derive or otherwise). The reason being the importance they have from the all-Ireland perspective. Whatever about the towns and villages of Northern Ireland, the counties are an important feature from the all-Ireland perspective.
• Why indicate that County Antrim is one of the nine counties of Ulster but not point out that it is one of the 32 counties of Ireland? I agree that indicating that it is one of the six counties of Northern Ireland important. And I agree that the precedent should be that the Northern Ireland context comes first. But shunting the all-Ireland perspective out of the way altogether is POV pushing in the other direction.

--RA (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the use of the word traditional and the perspective priority given by Superfopp.

True according to Irish Place Names Antrim means "one holding". I just copied straight from the article page, whoever added the translation should of sourced it.

The six counties of Northern Ireland belong to the United Kingdom however that has been left out of the lede if anyone has even noticed. Too much priority seems to be stressed on ensuring that the all-Ireland factor of the county rather than the fact it lies within the UK. The term Ireland is also read by many as meaning the Republic of Ireland so its controversial too. If you want to add in the all-Ireland perspective then the British aspect must also be added in:

But then this becomes troublesome as there are more counties if you include North Tipperary etc. and thus the troublesome term traditional reappears - however with this wording and context i think it might actually be ok - as long as its made clear its in reference to the island of Ireland. Superfopps arrangement and context was troublesome. Keeping it simple in the lede is the best way. Seeing as the Gaelic for Northern Ireland's counties is used by a minority in Northern Ireland and has no official status the derive tag should take prominence no matter the all-Ireland aspect. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is no longer about the word “traditional”. There seems to be an agreement to remove that from the leads. The issue is the order of words and whether to emphasise the states above all else. I believe the current wording is best.

For counties in Northern Ireland:

County Antrim (Irish: Contae Aontroma or simply Aontroim) is one of the counties of Ireland. It is located within the province of Ulster and is part of Northern Ireland. It was named after the town of Antrim.

For the other three counties in Ulster:

County Donegal (Irish: Contae Dhún na nGall or simply Dún na nGall) is one of the counties of Ireland. It is located within the province of Ulster and is part of the Republic of Ireland. It was named after the town of Donegal.

For counties elsewhere in the Republic of Ireland:

County Carlow (Irish: Contae Cheatharlach or simply Ceatharlach) is one of the counties of Ireland. It is located within the province of Leinster. It was named after the town of Carlow.

• As I noted before, the counties and provinces were created long before the current states.
• In Northern Ireland the counties are not used for administration. Hence, unlike the districts, they have no direct link to the state.
• The main article is Counties of Ireland and it should be linked in the lead. The Counties of Northern Ireland article merely repeats what’s already written on the main article and I suspect it was made to complete the England-Scotland-Wales series.
• Most counties were named after one of their main towns. Hence, using the "derived from" tag is misleading on those articles.

~Asarlaí 19:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, Wikipedia is not the province of any state or politics. County Antrim may be the property of the Crown but it is the topic that we are interested in. What government exercises sovereignty over it is only a part of the subject matter. I think Asarlaí's version lean too far towards the all-Ireland perspective but the anecdote is not to lunge the other way. How about this:

I think you're worrying too much that people will think Northern Ireland is a part of the Republic but does that alleviate your concerns of an imminent land grab? :-) Also, when I said that County Antrim didn't derive from "solitary farm", I didn't check what Aontroma meant either. I meant that County Antrim is derrived from Antrim, not Aontroma or "solitary farm" or "one holding". And I think the counties are an exception to the place name discussion at IMOS. The Irish name should appear in the lead for all the traditional counties. (On a related note, I think Counties of Northern Ireland and Counties of Ireland should be merged.) --RA (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposal is better than Superfopps. His County Carlow example should also state that it is in the Republic of Ireland. A problem however arises in your reasoning for not using derive tags. Not all of Northern Irelands counties are named after their county towns; Tyrone (Omagh), Down (Downpatrick), Londonderry (until 1973 its county town was Coleraine), and Fermanagh (Enniskillen). Three derive entirely from Irish and one half-English, half-Irish and so a derive tag would be useful instead. So for consistency i still think a derive tag might be best for Antrim and Armagh as well in respects to Northern Ireland. Contae Ard Macha etc. could however be placed in the infobox? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On merging the counties of Ireland and Northern Ireland articles together, i think thats a discussion for another day. We've got two going at the minute and i have a new one to start when these two finish - but it'll be a quicker and easier one. Personally if England, Scotland, and Wales each have their own, then Northern Ireland should have its own. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Striked out reference to a new discussion after these two end as its already been sorted - the County Londonderry navbox, which violated the accepted naming conventions. But its fixed now. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the leads of all non-Northern Ireland counties should say "...and is part of the Republic of Ireland". I had begun adding that to county articles but User:Sarah777 disagreed with it.
• The derive tag should only be used for counties whose names aren't derived from a town - although there are only eight. Otherwise it's misleading.
• Having "in the United Kingdom" in the lead is pointless. It isn't used in the leads of any Northern Ireland towns or cities. Furthermore, it isn't used in the leads of any towns, cities or counties elsewhere in the UK. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland is part of the UK; and if they're unsure they can just click the link. Why should it be used here and not elsewhere?

~Asarlaí 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well seeing as Northern Ireland is allegedly not a country according to some Wiki-editors, we should declare the country the county belongs to and well thats the United Kingdom. Joking aside, its POV to leave it out in my opinion whilst still declaring its one of the 32 counties in Ireland despite the fact there are technically more than that and that only the GAA, Ireland road-maps, and Irish republicans as far as i know actually use an all-Ireland county format - so its just as pointless as it has had no legal or official grounds since Partition. Also seeing as the rest of us have made proposals including the United Kingdom, i think we should keep to that. The counties belong to the UK, and this is also reflected in UK news were many a time the county is mentioned without Northern Ireland - BBC News many times when doing national news have used just County Down etc. - the same when refering to counties in Wales or Scotland.

I don't see how using derive tags for Counties Antrim and Armagh is going to mislead anyone Superfopp. As they have no official Irish name (and seeing as we are using that precedent in respect to towns and villages in Northern Ireland with use of derive tags instead of Irish tags) it shouldn't be imposed as if they have one. The names Antrim and Armagh are still Irish in origin and stating the origin of those words with derive tags is hardly misleading especially if you make it clear they are named after their county town. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Having "in the United Kingdom" in the lead is pointless". That's what links are for. If "pending the re-integration of the national terretory" is one end of the spectrum, then "United Kingdom" is the opposite end of the same spectrum. I think that we can all agree on a happy mean - "Northern Ireland". Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this which i culled and altered from the County Antrim history page way back in 2007:

County Antrim (from Irish Aontroim 'small holding') is one of the six counties of Northern Ireland, covering an area of 2,844 km², with a population of approximately 566,000. It is the 9th largest of the 32 traditional counties of Ireland in terms of area, and 2nd in terms of population behind Dublin. It is situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland, in the historical province of Ulster. It is named after the county town, Antrim.

It's informative and not as controversial i think. Also there once again appears the word traditional but in this context is not as troublesome. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we seem to have come full circle with the addition of "traditional counties". It would be a reasonable compromise, but the question is, is a compromise really needed? Looking back at the foregoing discussion I have the impression of a healthy consensus that neither "traditional" nor "United Kingdom" is warranted, with only a couple of vocal dissenters. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Scolaire (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly do you propose? Would this be more simple and better:

County Antrim (from Irish Aontroim 'small holding') is one of the six counties of Northern Ireland, covering an area of 2,844 km², with a population of approximately 566,000. It one of the 32 counties of Ireland, situated in the north-east of the island in the historical province of Ulster. It is named after the county town, Antrim.

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Much better IMO. Scolaire (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire. That's grand. I think we can take from this that:

1. Don't over emphaise the all-Ireland dimension or give the impression that all of Ireland forms one exclusive entity.
2. Mention that counties of Northern Ireland are both part of the six that form Northern Ireland and the 32 that form Ireland. Give the NI context precedence.
3. Use "traditional" if felt warranted (Or is that so?)

Aside from that, my only issue is with the use of Irish. County Antrim, for example, is not derived from "solitary holding" etc.. It was named after the town of Antrim. I think giving the Irish name straight out is appropriate for the counties given their importance to the "all-Ireland" perspective. Whether its their "official name" is a bit of a red herring (is "County X" even their "official name"?). It is verifiable their name in Irish. We give the Gaelic names for Scottish counties, for example. --RA (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference to 32 is a reference to "traditional" by the back door. It's unnecessary and should be avoided. Also, I dont's like the population bit coming in so early into the top line. Say what it is first, then say how big it is. For example:

County Antrim (from Irish Aontroim 'small holding') is one of six counties that form Northern Ireland. Situated in the north-east of the island, it is one of nine counties that constitute the historical province of Ulster. It was named after the town of Antrim. The county covers an area of 2,844 km², with a population of approximately 566,000.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course RA County Antrim doesn't come from "small holding", if it did it'd be County Smallholding hehe :-P The derive tag IMO is best for counties Tyrone, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Down, as i've already pointed out as none of them are named after their county town - the reason why i propose it for counties Armagh and Antrim is for consistency in regards to Northern Ireland counties.

I can swing with my proposal above Laurels or with Laurels. The mention of being part of the province of Ulster also implies an all-Ireland dimension as after all the province of Ulster is a part of the all-Ireland frame so that could maybe keep those who want an all-Ireland dimension mentioned in a way thats not in your face?? Especially since you can find out its part of the UK with the Northern Ireland link, you can find out its part of an all-Ireland framework with the Ulster link? It could be a fair compromise.Mabuska ^(talk) 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Ulster" dimension isn't sufficient. It seems to me to be a weasely way to avoid mention of the "all-Ireland" dimension. That County Antrim (or another other county in Northern Ireland) is one of the 32 counties of Ireland is not controversial. That is how the counties of Ireland are commonly described.

About the Irish names, you're missing the point. County Cork did not derive its name name from Corcaigh, meaning "marsh". The city of Cork did. The county was named after the city. It is the same for all(?) Irish counties.

The POV pushing around 6/32 counties is wearing my patience thin and I have little mood now to entertain anything other than simply giving the name of the county in Irish, as is common practice for every other place on this archipelago. --RA (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk of "POV pushing" is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion. If your patience is thin or you're in a mood then take a break from the discussion. Just as "Northern Ireland" is linked and shows the UK connection, "Ulster" is linked and shows the all-Ireland connection. Laurel's version is fine on all counts. For that matter, since my only objection is to the word "traditional", Mabuska's version is fine on all counts. Scolaire (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What originally defined these counties? I could see merit in mentioning that in the introduction perhaps. I haven't had time to read through the history of every county, might it do to describe their creation individually instead of saying they were part of a particular province? I was thinking along the lines of having their earliest history and latest in the lede. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right about talk of POV pushing - but what exactly is the issue with saying County Antrim (or any other county) is one of the 32 counties of Ireland (so long as that is not all that is said)? Why would we skirt around that with talk about Ulster? Example:

"The island of Ireland is divided into two major political units - Northern Ireland, which along with England, Scotland, and Wales forms the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. Of the 32 counties of Ireland, 26 are in the Republic. Of the four historic provinces, three and part of the fourth are in the Republic." Frommer's Ireland, 2006

Why would we skirt around this basic geography? --RA (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because it my not be geography but history. Because it gets too close to "traditional" which in turn can be hijacked by irredentists. Also, it no longer reflects current realities (see the 2 Tipperaries and the multiple Dublins). £" and traditional are too emotive, too fluid and have little to do with basic geography. The basic geography, if that's all that concerns you, is catered for in the sentance "Situated in the north-east of the island". Beyond that, we risk meddling in poticics. The definition as proposed by me avoids this problem to the satisfaction of most (extremists will never be satisfied) while simultaniously satisfying the geographic requirements. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say i agree with Laurels comments and ultimately her proposal. I entertained the idea of stating 32 counties of Ireland even though i didn't feel comfortable with it as it leans too much towards an agenda that feels to me as if stating that politically they are all still connected when after 1921 they politically aren't - and the number of counties isn't accurate anymore. The line "Situated in the north-east of the island of Ireland" is more than sufficient in my eyes, keeps it geographical, and doesn't include the political emotions that revolve around the term 32-counties of Ireland - which will be controversial for many readers. The only politics that should be included to keep it as neutral as possible is declaring what country it is in. Stating that it historically belongs to Ulster isn't political (as its had no political importance for centuries) and would be easier than saying more specifically that they are "one of the 32 counties that formed Ireland when part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". Mabuska ^(talk) 23:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"It is the same for all(?) Irish counties." - i've already stated two or three times its not the same for all Irish counties - Tyrone (Omagh), Fermanagh (Enniskillen), Londonderry (until 1973 Coleraine), and Down (Downpatrick) are not named after their county towns. Why should they not have derive tags to explain their origins and have instead Irish tags imposed? As Irish names have no official status on the counties of Northern Ireland it shouldn't be imposed on them just because the Republic of Ireland counties have official Irish names or because a sporting organisation uses Irish versions - if that was the case the London article should have Londain added to it. So if we can use derive tags for those 4 counties, Counties Antrim and Armagh, which are derived from their county town should not have Irish tags imposed after them.

How do these sound

For a county such as Tyrone:

A paragraph stating the Contae Tir Eoghain and its use by the GAA can also be added in the article. And don't nitpick about me using Owen - its the English for Eoghain and its meant to be a translation. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Where we've got to so far...

So far this is where we have got to:

1. General concensus to remove and keep out the term "traditional". Thats done and dusted.
2. No need for United Kingdom to be mentioned as clicking the Northern Ireland link will inform readers its part of the UK. Done and dusted.
3. Disagreement over whether stating that a Northern Irish county is part of the province of Ulster is satisifactory in declaring an "all-Ireland" dimension, even though like the Northern Ireland link in regards to its UK status, if you click Ulster you will see its all-Ireland dimension.
4. Disagreement over use of the term 32-counties of Ireland to show its all-Ireland dimension - an arguement being that it risks meddling in politics (controversial politics at that), and that it should be kept geographical, i.e. "situated in the nort-east of the island of Ireland" to avoid possible problems in the future. Its also problematic as there are more than 32 counties in Ireland in this present age.
5. Disagreement over whether the standard of using Irish tags after the English name (i.e. {{lang-ga}} for Republic of Ireland counties should apply to Northern Ireland where they have no official legal status, and use of the Irish tag hints there is.
6. Disagreement over whether derive tags should be used for counties in Northern Ireland instead, especially seeing as four out of the six counties names do not derive from their county town.

We have reached a general agreement about points 1 and 2. Points 5 and 6 can be ignored for now if needs be until points 3 and 4 are sorted so that we can keep it to one section of the topic at a time.

Proposals for points 3 and 4

A
The following was proposed by Laurel Lodged and is seen as fine by me and Scolaire.

B
The following was proposed by me, and is seen as fine by Scolaire as well, and also by RA (with exception to the specific Irish tag in use). However i have since removed by backing for my own proposal:

C
A newer proposal from me largely on the lines of what Laurel Lodged suggested but slightly rearranged (i'll give two examples, one where the county derives its name from the county town and one that doesn't):

Which seems more appropriate - A, B, or C?

The different tag use by me is essential i believe in maintaining the distinction between counties on either side of the border and their official names but that can be discussed later. Mine and Laurels aren't that much different. So i can back theirs as well as mine or a meshing of the both. Note the way i worded how Galway forms a part of the Republic of Ireland - it leaves out numbers as technically there are 29 counties in the Republic and it can confuse people so they can find out about the number of counties in the country in the Republic of Ireland link. Saves having to explain it. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say A. I see no reason that a county in Northern Ireland needs to specifically identify itself as belonging to a larger landmass. We've already rolled it up to the state level, I see no reason to go further. We need to explain where it is in relation to other counties in Northern Ireland, but we don't need to explain where it is in relation to the island as the Northern Ireland article does that quite nicely and is much more appropriate there. Similarly just mentioning the county is part of Ulster, with a link to Ulster is enough to cover that angle as well without putting undue weight on the statements. Just like we don't say where French Departments are with relation to Spain, we shouldn't be stating where NI counties are in relation to the state of Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, find some of the comments above grotesque. Talk about having to defend articles against "irredentist" (or the more polite ways of saying the same thing expressed by the two editors above) turns my stomach. CT in particular, you should really have more sense.

That Ireland has 32 counties and that the six counties of Northern Ireland are amongst them is uncontroversial and readily supported by any amount of reliable sources (examples). It is not something that even merits discussing as a matter of fact. It may be contrary to your politics to state so but that should really not come into it here. (Neither does it deserve to be pushed in the manner that it was above other perspectives.)

Removing mention of the 32 counties of Ireland from the relevant articles would be an appalling of example of tackling POV pushing by one editor by removing mention of that POV altogether. From the perspective of wanting to see articles written from a position of NPOV, I can support none of the above - not for what they say, but for they want not to say. Shame on you both. --RA (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit: I struck the above because you are - of course - entitled to your point of view. That perspective needs to come out through the articles but so too does the counter perspective. Removing perspectives on a topic from an article, or pushing them down so that they are disguised in some way, is no way to achieve NPOV on a topic.) --RA (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC))

Why state it if your going to strike it out unless you want to label us. Shame on me if you want, as its shame on you for labelling people as being POV just because we don't agree with your non-NPOV. Your the one labelling people as POV for not agreeing with you and thats the real problem. Its entirely POV to enforce an all-Ireland perspective on a part of the island that doesn't legally belong to the Irish Republic and its names. Ireland doesn't have 32 counties so its wrong to say it has. To say so ignores North and South Tipperary and the other few new counties. In otherwords we just ignore everything to attend to your alleged NPOV?? We should keep the whole thing neutral. Saying there are 32 counties can be construed as a massive POV as there isn't 32 counties in Ireland as Superfopp clearly stated and as it implies that the six-counties of Northern Ireland have a greater all-Ireland perspective when they don't. Why can't you accept a more neutral position on it? Northern Ireland should be kept distinct from the Republic of Ireland as it avoids being biased to a POV. Northern Ireland and its six counties have NOTHING OFFICIALLY OR LEGALLY to do with the Republic of Ireland. The GAA is a lone example of an unofficial all-Ireland dimension. Irish music and culture doesn't work on a county basis so why should everything else? Irish music and culture transcends county borders and indeed international borders and doesn't adhere to county borders. Do we need to call in the Wiki adminisitrators on this? For i think we should as i personally believe they'll agree that the two countries should be kept apart as they aren't one and the same. In fact in face of your allegations i propose we call in Wikipedia adminstrators to decide whats best. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I second Mabuska's comment: shame on you, RA, for your gross incivility, personal attacks and POV-pushing! Yes, your arguments are POV the same as everybody else's and you are the only one who's "pushing" yours (apart from CT of course, and hopefully he's sincere about going away). I advised you before to take a break from the discussion and you really should have - you've become far too emotional to contribute constructively.

Mabuska, calling in administrators is not as straightforward as that. Admins will sanction people who edit disruptively, but they don't do content disputes, which is all this is. There are several processes outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution but, to be honest, more often than not you will find that people don't want to get involved, and you don't get any closer to a resolution. Maybe the best way is to just let it rest for a couple of days, then see if we can get back to a more reasoned discussion. As you say, we have consensus on 1. and 2. The other questions are not the subject of an ongoing edit-war, so there is no urgency in discussing them.

While of course I have a political point of view, I don't see a problem with any of the proposed intros above. If I was going to quibble about anything, it would be the use of "Owen" v "Eoin". Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, I wasn't labeling you. Any statement that there are 32 counties of Ireland is supportable by a vast number of reliable sources. I am the only contributor to this discussion thus far that has seemingly shown any interest in what sources have to say. I agree entirely that giving too much weight to the 32-county context is inappropriate and biased. However, I cannot agree with statements like, "Northern Ireland should be kept distinct from the Republic of Ireland as it avoids being biased to a POV." Doing so only replaces one point of view with another. It doesn't address the essential problem of failing to meeet NPOV, where both perspectives can be presented in a neutral fashion with neither overwhelming the other. There is a strong perspective - outside of politics, even outside of these islands altogether - that sees Ireland, north and south, as one topic. Present the facts, and let the reader decide.

I don't think mention of the all-Ireland perspective needs to be up "in your face" (there is the infobox after all!), maybe just a mention of the word "Ireland" in proximity to "counties" to place it in that context would be sufficient. E.g.:

As for the Irish names, on reflection the procedure agreed at the IMOS would be fine. Northern counties like County Londonderry would not have an Irish name in the lead (as it doesn't right now)? Northern counties like County Fermanagh, would have a derivation?

Scolaire, talk of defending articles against "irredentist" does turn my stomach; in the same way as noise about about defending articles against "jingoes" and "imperialists" that is heard from time-to-time from some at the opposite end of the national spectrum turns my stomach also. --RA (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposition "C" gets my vote. I'd also share Scolaire's quibble and would favour "Eoin (also written as Eoghan or Owen)". Lastly, I'd like to pont out that I'm male, contrary to what others have assumed above. :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were a guy. I was surprised when somebody else referred to you as "she". At least it made me rethink my sexist POV momentarily. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Struck the above again because I (quite honestly) cannot see the reason not to mention the 32-county context and think its foolhardy to try to smother it. --RA (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My vote goes to B. I think that the 32 counties should be mentioned along with the province and the six counties for NI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmullan (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 June 2010

If I had to choose one, I'd choose B. There's not much of a difference between it and my latest proposals; the main difference being the mention of "six counties" and "32 counties". However, I have three points to make:

• For Northern Ireland counties, the derive tag should only be used with counties Fermanagh and Tyrone. The others were named after towns - County Antrim after Antrim, County Armagh after Armagh, County Down after Downpatrick, County Londonderry after Derry.
• For Northern Ireland counties, I see no reason for excluding the Irish names from the leads. They are widely used, and not only by the GAA.
• The county's location should be mentioned before its size and population.

~Asarlaí 18:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a proper straw poll going now, I'm going to come down in favour of B, for the same reason as RA: 32 counties is a common, uncontroversial and well-sourced model of Ireland and doesn't imply irredentism. Scolaire (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree RA that we should use the agreement we got on placenames in IMOS here as well. The Irish version such as Contae Doire can be added to the infobox so they get mentioned - however they already are.

Is Eoin itself not an Irish form rather than English?

Language tags could be used for Londonderrys origins: from English: London + Irish: daire meaning "oak wood".

I know Wikipedia doesn't do democracy and goes by concensus but i believe we may be able to get a concensus that we can all agree to. The number "32" counties i think is potentially troublesome. I could maybe change my choice, but it'd involve something like changing proposal B to wording such as: one of the 32 counties of the island of Ireland and mentioning the province of Ulster first maybe.

County Londonderry named after Derry? Doesn't look like it Superfopp, it looks like its missing something lmao :-P However the Wiki article for County Down only states that its named after its county town, Downpatrick, as you made that addition without a source yourself Superfopp on the 11th June 2010, the day before your above post. Is it named after Downpatrick exactly? I can't find a source for it and if it was wouldn't it be called County Downpatrick? Rather i think the real origin for County Down is the same as that of Downpatrick - St. Paddy's fort. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Downpatrick was originally named Down. It was still called that in 1260 when the Battle of Down was fought there. So yes, the county was named after the town of Down.

"One of the 32 counties of the island of Ireland" doesn't do it for me, for the same reason that "traditional counties" doesn't: it's not common usage. Might the problem be addressed by changing the way it is linked, so that instead of "one of the 32 counties of Ireland" it said "one of the 32 counties of Ireland"? Not having "32 counties" all in blue might make it look less like...whatever you think it looks like. Scolaire (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"The number '32' counties I think is potentially troublesome." Aye. There's an association with the number 32 that could be side-stepped if we were clever enough.

Can vouch for Scolaire's account. County Down is named after the town of Down:

Down, in Irish "Dun" (signifying a fortress), was in ancient times called Dundaleathglas, and afterwards DunPadraic or Downpatrick, from St. Patrick having been buried there. Down comprised the greater part of ancient Ulidia or Dalaradia; and was, in the reign of Edward the Second, formed into two counties, namely, Down, and the Ards (or Newtown); but in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, both were formed into the present county Down, which got its name from the chief town Dune or Downpatrick, and is Latinized "Dunum." - "Irish Pedigrees; or, the Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation" by John O'Hart, Fifth Edition, 1892

--RA (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool info thanks guys. The change in the links you've provided Scolaire actually does make it look less, i dunno exactly, but something. Maybe cause it de-highlights the 32. But as RA says there might be a way to side-step the 32 if we're clever enough - are we clever enough lol?? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal

But do we really want to be clever? Why not quit while we're ahead? I'd like to formally propose:

or leave out {{derive}} if preferred:

Scolaire (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm the second proposals way of putting the county town is a good idea, but wouldn't fit in with the other Northern Ireland counties that'd need derive tags and the county town stated somewhere. Personally i don't like giving the thirty-two counties statement so much prominence near the start of the lede. I think adding in Lough Neagh is a good geographical descriptor that should be added in (except for Fermanagh obviously). What do you think Scolaire about the following? It gives the bare geographical and demographical info for the county before stating any of its historical or political connections:

Though just remembering on the three proposals at the start of this sub-section, proposals A and B both had three votes so clearly no concensus. I think we need more editors involved as only 6 have taken part with 3 that are continually inputting - a concensus if reached could possibly be argued against as under-representing. And for something like this i think we may need as broad a concensus as possible? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To take your points one by one:

Consistency doesn't (and couldn't) mean that every article is identical. What I'm suggesting is that for Antrim, Armagh and Down (and maybe kinda Londonderry) we have the county town in brackets after the name, and for Fermanagh and Tyrone (and maybe kinda Londonderry) have it in a sepatate sentence. If you take away the bracketed derivation from any article, somebody will quickly stick a {{lang}} or {{derive}} in there.

The layout you propose is fine with me. I wouldn't have any problem with it at all.

Consensus is the very opposite of vote-counting. You reach a consensus by discussion, as we are doing now. You have reached a consensus when there is a proposal on the table and nobody is saying "no". I think we're very, very close to that now. And you can only have consensus among those editors that care enough to discuss the issue. A lot of people read this page. If they don't choose to get involved we can't make them. So even if there's only two or three people left, once there is consensus between them there is consensus. And don't worry about somebody arguing against it later - remember that consensus can change. --Scolaire (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that, was just counting up to see what way views where swinging. I just wonder does the inclusion of "the historical thirty-two counties of Ireland" or something similar (other than traditional) desire merit? Seeing as there are issues with the modern usage of 32 counties as its inaccurate, putting it into a proper context maybe better? Looking at other articles and their counties and provinces and so far i cann't see them put into context in relation to the rest of the landmass they are on. As CT made clear, why it needs inclusion is still beyond me just like Superfopps disagreement with an image that depicts Northern Ireland on its own. Must Northern Ireland always have its hand held by the republic? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, I have twice defended you strenuously against charges of POV-pushing. Quite honestly, your comments above feel like a stab in the back to me. RA and I have both stressed that "thirty-two counties" is common usage, as in "commonly used by people all over the world", not as in "irredentist republican-speak". The thirty-two counties were created by the English, many centuries bofore republicanism was ever heard of. The new administrative areas that you and CT are banging on about were created by the Republic of Ireland. So what precisely is the "context" you want to put it in? And what's with this "landmass" c**p? Ireland is not Eurasia or South America. It is a tiny island. And it is also a country that existed for thousands of years, in one form or another, before the very recent partition that created Northern Ireland.

What is beyond me is why anybody would want to put so much effort into fine-tuning a proposal and then, when their proposal is accepted, reject it out of hand. Please stop wasting your time and everybody else's if you're not actually trying to reach a consensus. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Scolaire its just i'm getting tired at the way almost everything in relation to Northern Ireland must make reference to the Republic of Ireland or the island of Ireland as a whole. Why i would put so much effort into it and then reject it? Because i'm tired of having to give way to one viewpoint whilst little is given the other way, and tired of the way i'm quoted articles and templates that use a manner of style, but am told i can't use this or that despite similar being used in other articles and templates. Articles on Welsh, Scottish, and English counties don't show the relation between each other and Great Britain is not the biggest island in the world. I can't use United Kingdom in the lede as other articles don't, but must accept the inclusion of 32 counties? The number 32 is inaccurate and it needs put into a context. We aren't near a concensus as Laurel Lodged and CT don't agree that 32 counties should be included at all and to be honest i don't if we go by other county articles in the UK and around Wikipedia. My concensus to use the of thirty-two counties hinges on whether they'd accept it - CT didn't accept it when i asked him on his view of my new proposal. I was trying to be flexible, but the flexibility doesn't seem to go both ways.

I don't see the Texas article lede putting the state in a county/historical context with Mexico or Spain - other than stating it shares a border with Mexico and that its name is from Spanish. The Haiti departments, such as Centre_Department, make reference to bordering the Dominican Republic but thats it. Alsace describes the present geography and demography of Alsace in relation to France in the first lede paragraph, and then in a seperate paragraph in the lede gives a brief overview of its history - this could be done with Northern Ireland counties to provide the all-Ireland context by giving their creation, partition, and adding at the end that its still referred to as one of the 32 counties of Ireland by the GAA and nationalism etc.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on too long - let's think about the points made and leave it for a few months. I agree with "the word traditional could be used for the County Tipperary and County Dublin articles where they no longer technically exist but still do for many things." The counties were all English-law counties, but often based in part on previous Gaelic-era boundaries. They were all shired by 1606 (Wicklow was the last) under the unitary Kingdom of Ireland, so the modern 26-&-6 arguments, both for and against, are all modernist. We in the Republic should accept that the county system worked well as it has lasted so long, even if so many other innovations did not.Red Hurley (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why leave it a few months as the issue does need sorted and the current county ledes are ghastly thanks to some undiscussed editing and we are all in agreement they need reworded. If a period of break is to be taken can we use the last proposal of mine which Scolaire agreed with in the meantime to improve the county ledes which would preserve the all-Ireland perspective until it is re-discussed and sorted? In fact one last proposal which i believe will fix the context for me: saying "was also one of the thirty-two counties of Ireland" rather than is - it will put the 32 counties into a proper context, i.e. a historical pre-1922 context when Ireland was whole. It would fix the troublesome number 32 issue for me. This was the last proposal i proposed:

Mabuska ^(talk) 22:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A break wouldn't be a bad idea IMHO. A few months is too long a break though. I second putting Scolaire's last suggestion in for the time being an returning to this discussion in a weeks time.

You've raised some good points about how to treat topics relating to Northern Ireland and the balance between the UK, Ireland and archipelago contexts. You've raised them not only here but in a number of locations. Needless to say this is a question that gnaws at everyone in one respect or another. A little breathing space to mull over them and properly formulate our positions might be good before we head into them.

Also, rather than taking up acres of spaces on this notice board why don't we take it to WP:IECOLL? --RA (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree a few weeks may be better. Oh yeah forgot about the brackets after County Antrim. RA can you accept my last proposal along with the (named after the county town, Antrim) added into it for Coutny Antrim and derive tags for the other 3 or 4? - it includes a good geographical descript as well as historical associations and includes the 32 counties. I'll forget about was at this time just so that we can fix the ledes with some sort of temprorary measure. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm grand either way with the "named after" element for now but I think Scolaire's suggestion is less dramatic (and more even handed for now) still introducing what we all agree should be there (the NI context) into the articles. --RA (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how given its basic geographical and demographical details is dramatic and how its less even handed. Is it less even handed because 32 counties is not near enough to the start of the lede or something? No matter its only a temporary measure - i have an idea that might fulfill all of our needs without leaving anyone short but it needs careful wording so a wee break will allow me to formulate it.

Though how can you second using someones suggestion as a temporary stop-gap measure when it wasn't proposed as a stop-gap measure in the first place lol. We should also fix the Republic of Ireland counties to state what country they are a part of.

I'll put the stop-gap measure in place now and add the Republic of Ireland to the appropraite articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Another good bit about a break is that on the NPOV Discussion board we can see what views are expressed by other editors and take any suggestions or points onboard and think about them before restarting and resolving the debate (hopefully in far less space). Mabuska ^(talk) 23:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I support Mabuska's last proposal, with "named after the county town" moved to immediately after the name and bracketed, and without the "was". I think it flows a bit better than mine. Also support RA's suggestion that any further discussion takes place on WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. That is, after all, what the project was set up for. Scolaire (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've amended the Northern Ireland ledes to the stop-gap lede. I also took the liberty of fixing the Republic of Ireland county ledes to " is one of the twenty-six counties of the Republic of Ireland, and also one of the thirty-two counties of Ireland" instead of the "traditional" and exluding "Republic of Ireland" style. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mabuska, it looks like you've used the wrong wording. Wasn't Scolaire's last proposal meant to be the "stop-gap measure" ? ~Asarlaí 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not according to Scolaire - see three posts up. Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that Mabuska's intros mention the size and population before "thirty-two counties of Ireland, in the province of Ulster". Surely the county's location should be mentioned before anything else? ~Asarlaí 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that I support it. Scolaire (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to start talking about the county's location – take a break to mention it's size and population – then start talking about its location again. As far as I can see, only yourself and Mabuska have said (specifically) that you support that format. ~Asarlaí 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Uck sure its only temporary anyways. Well it starts off with the countys present political location, then procedes to give a very brief modern geographical and demograhpic description which is very relevant, and then mentions historical and cultural associations (Ulster and 32 counties would meet both criteria) which i believe aren't as high up in importance as the countys present country and modern geographical/demographical details are - thats not saying that they aren't important, but not as important as the immediate details. Thats just my view. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Been on holidays, so have left the fray. Just want to lodge my continuing objection to the use of "traditional" and "32". Despite denials, they are certainly irredentist. And what's more, they're entirely unnecessary. Proposition C above conveys all the necessary info with links to other pages if the inclination so strikes the viewer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you take it to WikiProject Ireland Collaboration per above discussion? Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be restarting the issue hopefully towards a resolution over there within the next week (after the recess on the issue) unless someone else wants to go ahead? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up for anyone who hasn't got the collaboration project page watched, heres a link to an off-shoot of this issue: here which is essentially about the same thing but in picture terms. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that nobody minds that I made a barnstar for this Wikiproject. It's nothing much, and anyone can replace it if they want, but I noticed that this WikiProject didn't have one and thought you might like one. Template:Irish barnstar --Slon02 (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Because we are an all-island, all periods, project, the use of the tricolour is inappropriate for this use and will likely cause problems. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a nice idea and thanks for it, however that barnstar is inappropriate and sterotypes all Irish people as belonging to the Republic of Ireland. However a more suitable image for this project might be St. Patrick's saltire? Or maybe a simple map of the island of Ireland? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I will fix it this weekend if someone doesn't do so before me. --Slon02 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This barnstar actually already exists somewhere (not sure where though). Barnstars of national merit exist for every country, and this is the Republic of Ireland's one (hence "national" merit). Therefore the symbol shouldn't be changed as the island of Ireland is not a country. A separate barnstar for Northern Ireland may be created surely. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats the problem Footyfanatic3000, its a barnstar for this project. I'm assuming its meant directly for the island not any of its political entities. Whilst one for each county is suitable, one for this project which encompoasses the whole usland deserves merit. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Footyfanatic3000- I tried to find a barnstar of national merit for Ireland, and I couldn't find one. I researched in every place where barnstars are know to live, so I made this one. Mine could serve as the BoNM for Ireland, although a separate one for this project (one for the whole island) would be good also. --Slon02 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that one exists for Ireland somewhere, although I'm not sure where it is. Good work anyway! My other point was that Ireland as an island is not a country so a barnstar created for the island wouldn't be a barnstar of national merit, as such. Therefore the best thing to do is to leave your barnstar as a Republic of Ireland barnstar, and create a separate barnstar for the whole island under a different name. Despite what others say, every country has its' own barnstar with the country's national flag on it (including the UK), so I don't see why Ireland should be any different. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 00:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

here's the other one. personally, I prefer the new version. aineolach (u · d · c) 05:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No-ones disagreeing with the use of the tricolour in regards to a barnstar for the Republic of Ireland. However the issue for a Northern Ireland one can be a tricky one - some editors will no doubt not like the use of the Ulster Banner even though it was the last specific flag for Northern Ireland before it was replcaed with the national United Kingdom flag.Mabuska ^(talk) 10:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to use the shape of Northern Ireland as the symbol. The Ulster Banner is really only a symbol of unionism nowadays, despite it previously being an official flag. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 22:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done up a barnstar featuring a shamrock. It can be seen here. --RA (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That actually looks quite nice. As the shamrock was symbolised by Saint Patrick, how about using it as a barnstar for editors who improve the coverage of the articles of Irish saints and religion in Ireland in general? Mabuska ^(talk) 17:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. Or Brigid's cross? (Or is that too Catholic in connotation?) Or a dove for Colum Cille? (Our other two patron saints.) --RA (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Shamrocks more easily identifiable. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but for someone working in the area of Irish saints and religion in Ireland, the symbolism of Brigids cross for example would surely be familiar to them and be more relvent to that context? Anyway, I can do one up if you want (Shamrock or otherwise) - or are you suggesting to use this one for that purpose (and not for this purpose)? --RA (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place on the maps used to show the counties of Ireland. The main thrust is about how to show, or whether to show, the opposite jurisdiction in Ireland for the counties in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Or how to balance the all-island context and the ROI/NI context in graphic form.

The discussion is taking place here and wide input is welcome. Many thanks, --RA (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I made an attempt to tidy up the article Constantia Grierson. This version was assessed as B-Class which I believe was wrong incorrect, could someone reassess it. thanks Mrchris (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Members of the European Parliament from Ireland, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Albums from Northern Ireland, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, a maintenance script is available to convert the entire contents of a page from American spelling to British spelling, see the documentation here. If you have any queries or feel that the script needs modifying in any way, you know where to find me ;-) Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

See above friendly notice Gnevin (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am cleaning Category:Economies by country and I was surprised to find that there is no main article for Category:Economy of Ireland. Then I discovered that the article on Economy of Ireland redirects to Economy of the Republic of Ireland and is the main article for Category:Economy of the Republic of Ireland. The Category:Economy of Ireland notes that "This category relates to the economy of the island of Ireland as a whole, including the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland."

I find this rather confusing, not the least in the scheme of Economies by countries category. There is a bunch of modern Ireland articles and categories in Economy of Ireland (such as PRSAs, the article in Category:Pensions in Ireland - but also in Category:Economy of the Republic of Ireland). I could cite a bunch of similar examples, bottom line is that there seem to be a major confusion about the difference between C:EoI and C:EotRoI.

If Ireland is a historic term, then Category:Economy of Ireland needs to be merged to Category:Economic history of Ireland (but I am not sure what to do with Category:Economy of Northern Ireland). If Economy of Ireland refers not to history, but to articles that concern both the economy of Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, quite a lot of cleanup is needed (mostly in moving articles from C:EoI to C:EotRoI), and I'd strongly suggest replacing - in Category:Economies by country - the entry for C:EoI with C:EotRoI; and making C:EoI a subcategory to Category:Economies by region. I hope this makes sense :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything about the country today that could also be about the island (like the economy) should be at Republic of Ireland to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that there two things called Ireland: a modern state and an island. To add to the confusion, in a historical context the island was also a state. Depending on the topic, one of the two "Ireland" may be the more intuitive context. The official name and the common name of both entities is Ireland. The subject of how to dab the two was a source of enormous debate (and an eventual ArbCom case). A manual of style entry now exists for this issue at WP:IRE-IRL.

In my opinion, "Economy" is closely related to the function of states so, in a contemporary context, "Economy of Ireland" should refer to the state. In a historical context, again in my opinion, "Economic history of Ireland" should refer to the entire island since it would touch not only on the economic history of the current state but also of the former state and when the whole of Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. The "Economy of Northern Ireland" would fit under the "Economy of the United Kingdom" (and an "Economy of the island of Ireland" category if that existed) as would the "Economic history of Ireland". "Economic history of the Republic of Ireland", would suggest an economic history relating specifically to the current state (i.e. beginning in 1922) and would not obviously contain information relating to the island of Ireland.

I would advice against using "Republic of Ireland" to arbitrarily disambiguate one "Ireland" from the other without attention to the context. Whilst it is temptingly convenient, it is contentious at least in articles. I'd also suggest getting fairly wide sample of opinion on the subject of whether to use Ireland/Republic of Ireland. --RA (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A perennial issue but, in light of current events at AN/I, it may be time to get community input on a proposed MOS entry to cover this issue. I would envision the MOS entry accompanying the proposed topic ban on systematic addition/removal of the term British Isles form the encyclopedia. A straw poll on the proposed MOS entry is here. Comments are also invited. --RA (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check Séamus Ó Kelly and Seumas O'Kelly, I don't know the proper teamplates in this wiki... Gons (¿Digame?) 23:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gons (talk • contribs)

I've redirected one to the other. aineolach (u · d · c) 06:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Recently I finished creating navboxes for each of the Northern Ireland counties – Template:County Antrim, Template:County Down, Template:County Londonderry and Template:County Tyrone. The Armagh and Fermanagh navboxes had been made by others a while back. I also made Template:County Monaghan, and plan on making more. Currently all the county navboxes have the same general layout – see Category:Ireland county templates.

However, without informing anyone else, User:Mabuska has now decided to create his own rival navboxes for the Northern Ireland counties – see Template:NI County Londonderry. The message he left on the template talk page implies that he's doing this because the current NI navboxes aren't different enough from the ROI navboxes.

It's obvious from this and previous discussions that Mabuska prefers the two states be treated as separately as possible... but is creating a rival series of navboxes really necessary? Are there other editors who have problems with these navboxes? If so, surely we can just make some tweaks to the current ones?

Let's discuss this. ~Asarlaí 13:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: Mabuska has begun to place his rival navboxes alongside the current ones, and has vowed to continue doing so – see my talk page. ~Asarlaí 17:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't vow, i just said seeing as your caters in appearance to an all-Ireland perspective and mine doesn't they can possible sit side by side. Seeing as Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland are two different entities whats your problem with the idea? :Personally Northern Ireland county navboxes should be different from Republic of Ireland ones. Did you discuss the creation of yours? I hardly think it. Despite the very POV colour of them which isn't the easiest to read black font on and the maps you use which caters for all-Ireland politics rather than Northern Ireland specific. I see no problem in the ones i am creating as they cater for Northern Ireland specifically. Personally i think mine should be used in preference for Northern Ireland counties than the all-Ireland agenda ones which by the way contain inaccuracies. Yours is another attempt just like the use of "traditional" etc. to impose an all-Ireland view on Northern Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"It uses the default colour as it is the most neutral and keeps it distinct from the counties of the Republic of Ireland which are politically different." - yep Superfopp thats a highly controversial statement i made on the purpose of the navbox. Personally i'd rather have yours adjusted to be more Northern Ireland centric and neutral coloured. But if i touched your templates you'd just revert, revert, revert. Personally my two so far have better attributes as they expand on the territorial divisions and the map is better IMO. Just for a note if anyone decides to check Superfopps contribs today you'll see he's been rushing as fast as possible to impose all of his navboxes on as many articles as possible.

So which of these looks better and gives more information? Yes mine have red links but i am creating stubs for them. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talkpage... if you dislike some things about the six current navboxes, making six rival navboxes and pasting them beside the old ones in every article isn't the way to deal with it. The way to deal with it is by starting a discussion. If other editors agree that changes should be made, then those changes can be made on the current navboxes.

Also, please don't cut-and-paste this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland again.

~Asarlaí 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, at least provide a link so that Northern Ireland editors who don't read this WIkiProject page can be informed. Seeing as there aren't more than 20 articles iirc sharing both of our navboxes don't overplay it by saying "all". Yes i know i should of discussed it first, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but you should of discussed your new navboxes (amongst other things) before plastering them everywhere. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So lets discuss the navboxes properly now. I will happily dispose of my versions and give your versions prominence, if the following changes can be discussed and made to yours:

• The declaration of Counties of Northern Ireland in the top of the navbox to make it clear that the county is part of Northern Ireland.
• A neutral colour should be used in respect to Northern Ireland counties, i.e. the default. As Northern Ireland counties and the Republic of Ireland are seperate entities they do not need to share the same county navbox colours. The green also doesn't read well with the black and blue font, and the colour will be seen by some readers as POV and could be vandalised.
• A Northern Ireland specific map should be used in my opinion as its politically part of Northern Ireland. The county in location to all-Ireland can be found in the Counties of Ireland article. If needs be an all-Ireland one can be given below the Northern Ireland one to show the all-Ireland dimension if other editors feel so.
• Adding the baronies and civil parishes is a good way to expand the navboxes.
• The checking of all of your settlements to ensure they are actually in the county as some aren't.

I think they are fair enough. What do you think? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Suggestions:

• Use the default colours.
• Lose the images.
• Keep the "Places in County Fuaighbar" name.

--RA (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Finally, a discussion...

Colour: I'm fine with using the default navbox colour. I don't know why green was chosen as the default 'Irish county navbox' colour in the first place.

Maps: Your proposed maps imply that Northern Ireland is an island and don't show the six counties in relation to the others. If I had to choose between that and no map, I'd choose no map.

Names: I think the current "Places in County Fuaighbar" names are fine. If someone's unsure whether a county is north/south of the border, they're only one click away from finding out. Also, the England county templates, Scotland county templates and Wales county templates don't include the country names.

Baronies/Parishes: I'm fine with including those, but I'd rather wait until all the articles have been made.

~Asarlaí 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We can agree with the default colours, which will match the other Northern Ireland sub-division templates. Which reminds me, the Northern Ireland county navboxs should be also category tagged as Northern Ireland sub-division templates (which already exists) rather than generally as United Kingdom subdivisions as the other county templates in the UK are sorted by country.

Seeing as the other countries countys go that way on the Foobar, i can agree with that Superfopp. However i think that at the bottom of the navbox, should be included the Northern Ireland and UK portals just as Template:Northamptonshire makes use of them as do many other England county templates, though in different places. It is full of links for Northern Ireland articles on various things that people will find useful. In fact the Ireland and Northern Ireland WikiProjects could be added to as that example also includes that countys wikiproject.

When i create the stubs for the baronies and the such, i'll add the blocks into the templates. Though i don't see why they can't be added in now as other templates and pages contain many uncreated pages.

On regards to the image, as you said yourself, people are only one click away. Though its relation to the rest of Ireland isn't required. Saying it makes Northern Ireland look like an island is silly - it shows the state of Northern Ireland which is all that is required for it. These templates use cut-off images and it doesn't make these places look like islands: Template:Aberdeenshire_places, Template:Daventry_District, Template:Rhondda_Valley. Template:Anglesey, Template:Cardiff show a small bit of England. Do these German infobox and navbox Template:Infobox_German_location, Template:States_of_Germany make Germany look like an island?

"looking like an island" isn't a justifiable reason as a way not to show Northern Ireland on its own. Maybe the outline of the nearest parts of Republic of Ireland can be added in - however they have no need for inclusion. Why must Northern Ireland always be shown or listed in relation to a greater whole? No offence but their is a whiff of nationalistic agenda about it without consideration of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. In fact i may as well start a discussion on the county maps used in the county article infoboxes - all the other UK counties don't appear to be shown in relation to the rest of the island of Great Britain. Why should Northern Ireland to the rest of the island of Ireland? It feels like back door united Ireland with everything being tied to the republic to cater one point of view without any sort of concessions to those that don't adhere to it.

Heres a rework of the template i created including several of the above changes and suggestions, though it keeps the image as there is nothing wrong with it. Can any agreed changes be implemented with the images left out of the navboxes until we can agree on the image use?

Mabuska ^(talk) 22:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We agree on the colours, the names, and the (eventual) inclusion of baronies and parishes. We've still to reach an agreement on the maps, but I think we should let more editors pitch-in before choosing which maps to use.

I'll start changing the colours and removing the maps from the current navboxes. Your two new navboxes should also (I think) be redirected to the old ones.

~Asarlaí 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. My navboxes should be deleted in the end, however not before i copy the baronies and civil parishes out of them so that they can be easily added in future to your versions. I reverted the redirect for now Superfopp as it got rid of the other amendments and suggestions that i'm proposing to add into the navbox. Its only used on 16 articles (including this one) so it won't be causing too much of a problem at the minute and easily be edited out. You can keep the Tyrone one redirected. Please see above anyone on the use of the portals at the bottom of the navbox. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So is there a problem with the bottom portal bar? If not i'll add it into the navbox? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem here. ~Asarlaí 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. So seeing as the infobox uses an all-Ireland image what harm does the "island" Northern Ireland county image do in the navbox? For a navbox which is small its more specific in showing where its at in relation to its country. By the way why did you change the colour of the County Monaghan box? Its not in Northern Ireland so there isn't an issue with it. The colours help define the political distinction between the two countries and the blue is not as contentious a colour in regards to Northern Ireland. Something can however be done with the strength of the green to make the font easier to read, or maybe just change the font on the green to white or something? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mind you its funny how i can't add in "Counties of Northern Ireland" when the following Republic of Ireland counties have "Ireland" added to the county title: Template:County_Leitrim, Template:County_Sligo, Template:County_Wicklow,Template:County_Donegal, Template:County_Kilkenny, Template:County_Carlow. Though they do have another good piece for the other navboxes: the second bar states "Couty town: yaddayadda". Seeing as a link to list of placces in county yadda is a tautology as thats what the navbox details, would county town not be a good idea? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm inclined to agree. The difference is anomolous and unnecessary. Having said that, the declaration in the template that it is following the US model need not be binding on us. After all, they have the state level (Maine) as well as the sovereign state level (USA) to cater for. That does not really arise in our case(s). So I suggest that the RoI template drop the superflous "Ireland". It's practically a tautology anyway. If you've gone the whole way to that nav box and haven't figured out that you're in the RoI or NI, then there's something wrong with you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There are currently issues over the coverage of the role of Granada Television in the case of the Birmingham Six, particularly the drama-documentary Who Bombed Birmingham? shown a year before their release. Any input would be appreciated. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Rosmuck on a proposal to change the name of the article to either Rosmuc or Ros Muc. Please contribute if you have any thoughts. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right location. If not, I'll move it. I'm finding it impossible to justify the continuing existance of the two categories called "Category: Dublin" and "Category:County Dublin". I've come to the conclusion that there's not a hair's breath of difference between the two. I know that some will say that the former mainly refers to the city while the latter refers to the wider county; I just don't buy it. There's not a Irish: tráthnín of difference in practical terms. The two overlap to a ridiculous degree. If it was a large hinterland behind the city, like County Cork, then I'd understand; but Dublin? Please. Let's merge the two and put befuddled Wikipedians out of their misery. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the motion - here Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A while back you I posted a message about inviting people to sign their name at Wikimedia Ireland with the intention of starting a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland. Well, it took a year (almost to the day) but ten editors have expressed an interest in starting a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland, which meets the criteria for a "critical mass".

If you're interested, I'd would be great if we could kick off discussion. Maybe, a first step might be to introduce ourselves (anonymously) at the chapter talk page with some ideas about what a chapter could do or a sketch of our interest in founding one ... or even just to say 'hello' :-)

You may also be interested in joining the Wikimedia Ireland mailing list, if you are not already on it. --RA (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated The Waterboys for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No one has made any significant edits to improve this article, so it will likely be delisted soon unless someone step up. According to the history it seems no single editor seems to have major input which is why it is not on anyone's radar. Can someone help out? If so, please drop a note on the review page which may buy some time. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can a few editors help we out with the Rathfriland article. IP editor User_talk:193.95.153.172 keeps removing content and trying to input unsourced pov material. I am one step away from breaking 3RR and have warned him twice. So could someone else help me out here? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I will put it on my watchlist. Bjmullan (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing about the height of Ireland's highest mountain. We have reliable sources claiming it to be 1038m, 1039m, 1040m and 1041m. The last discussion petered-out so I've started a new one. ~Asarlaí 18:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if anyone could help expand the article that'd be great. Compared to the article for Britain's highest mountain, ours is bare bones. ~Asarlaí 19:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've opened up a new discussion on the place names origins issue that I, Asarlai, RA, and Canterbury Tail had agreed too not too many months ago (something still not widely implemented seeing as how slow we are). Nothing radical just something i've noticed that wasn't realised beforehand which needs addressed. This discussion can be found here. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened here about adding the country a county belongs to into the infobox. This discussion can be found here. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiya. I found this article, but can find no sources for Lacy's canal. I did, however, find something saying that the Joe Dolan bridge went over the River Brosna. I think this article might just be completely wrong. Could somebody check it out, and delete / reference as appropriate. Cheers, Chris (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I found this article in the "Westmeath Examiner". It mentions a "Joe Dolan Memorial Bridge", but it seems to be a by-pass rather than a crossing over a canal. http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/mullingar/articles/2010/07/28/3998828-september-launch-for-joe-dolan-memorial-bridge/ Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it accurate to describe an Irish County as a feudal entity? Clearly, in the Republic, feudalism has been abolished, but that's not to say that the modern counties which are the basis for local government did not (with a few exceptions) derive from older entites, which could in turn be described as feudal. Can this be taken as a given? Or must evidence be presented that King John (or whomever) created County X, and that he gave grants of lands (baronies) to Barons A, B & C who in turn sub-infeudated it to their vassals etc etc? Must one state when the county ceased to be feudal in nature and became just part of the administrative furniture? It seems that the word feudalism was coined in the 17th century after feudalism has ceased to exist. Is this fact an impediment to attaching the description to an Irish County? May the description of feudal only be used by sub-divisions of counties (e.g. baronies)? What say you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

MacCotter (Medieval Ireland: Territorial, Political and Economic Divisions) is your man for evidence. And yes, of course we need evidence: WP:V is quite important. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I have a copy of the book and so, I think, does Fergananim.

There are 20 pages in the "Category:Civil parishes in Dublin". Two seem to have a direct bearing on the subject matter (List of subdivisions of County Dublin and Balscadden). The remaining 18 are entitled St Werburgh's Church, Dublin etc. However, the contents of the articles, many well researched and referenced, dwell almost exclusively on the bricks and mortar aspect of the church with some (perhaps one sided) sections on the church's history and famous parishoners. At no time does the article describe the local government function of the civil parish of the same name. It does not place the civil parish in its context of barony. t makes only passing reference to those citizens of the civil parish that were not member of a particular denomination - the Church of Ireland. Attempts to introduce such details have been reverted by the editor that has invested most work in the 18 articles. To my mind the issue is that for each of the articles, they are either about a civil parish or about a particular piece of bricks and mortar currently controlled by a particular denomination. The choices then become: (1) If it's about a civil parish, then it needs to contain information about the civil parish, barony and county. The name should also reflect that purpose e.g. "St. X (civil parish)" or "Civil parish of St. X". (2) If the article's purpose is closer to a particular denomination desription, then why does it have a category of civil parish? By straddling both at the moment, it is giving unsatisfactory service to both sides. What say you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at List of subdivisions of County Dublin i can see what you mean. Many of the links don't link to an article about the parish - which i assume may be the fault of the editor of the list article for not using disambiguity to make the distinction. I think its either add the information into the lede for example; is also a civil parish in... or create a stub article and link the list article to it.

The category those churches are in should also be changed to a sub-category of the civil parish one such as; Category: Church's in parish of .... Though technically churches aren't connected to civil parishes - just ecclesiastical parishes so the church articles i don't think belong in it at all. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

::In fact i have removed the civil parish category from the articles as they are already categorsied under Churchs in Dublin which is more than suffice and accurate. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact i'm not going to bother at the moment, the articles are bit of a trouble being about a specific church then detailing the parish - when i think both should be seperate articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just discovered this and I suspect that a certain editor has jumped the gun in making multiple deletions without at least going to the talk pages - also I feel a bit peeved that only articles created by me have been targeted.

I would dispute the assertion made by the first editor above on articles created by me: "many well researched and referenced, dwell almost exclusively on the bricks and mortar aspect of the church with some (perhaps one sided) sections on the church's history and famous parishoners". Firstly, IMHO, all have been well researched and referenced, are objective, and they contain a good deal of historical information including images and maps dealing with all aspects of the church, parish, parishioners, etc., not easily available nowadays, as anyone can see on reading them.

On a point mentioned by the second editor, articles about churches, as about universities or hospitals or whatever, if they have any aspiration to quality, invariably mention the history, personalities, parish, ministry, current activities, etc. of the institution. For example St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin's contents are:

   1 Background
   2 History
         o 2.1 Medieval
         o 2.2 1600s
         o 2.3 Dean Swift and the 1700s
         o 2.4 Knights of Saint Patrick
         o 2.5 The 19th century and restoration
   * 3 Today - national cathedral
   * 4 Status
   * 5 Dean and Chapter
         o 5.1 The offices, prebends and their current holders
         o 5.2 Ecumenical Canons
   * 6 Friends of Saint Patrick's Cathedral
   * 7 Access
   * 8 Points of Note
   * 9 Choir School and Grammar School
   * 10 Organ
         o 10.1 List of Organists
   * 11 Cathedral group of parishes

The Roman Catholic Mount St. Peter Church is a Good Article which has the following contents:

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Diocese of Greensburg
         o 1.2 Founding and early days of St. Peter parish
         o 1.3 Italian anarchist movement
         o 1.4 World War II affects the congregation
   * 2 Relocating and building a church by hand
         o 2.1 Acquiring materials from the Mellon Mansion
         o 2.2 Building Mt. St. Peter Church
         o 2.3 Fund raising
         o 2.4 Raising the roof
   * 3 Opening of Mt. St. Peter Church
   * 4 Additions to the church
         o 4.1 The Marble Hall
         o 4.2 The rectory
         o 4.3 The Mount Saint Peter Oval
         o 4.4 Convent school
         o 4.5 Parochial school
   * 5 Pastors of Mt. St. Peter
   * 6 Congregation in the 21st century
         o 6.1 Church mission
         o 6.2 Festa Italiana
         o 6.3 Parish Organizations
               + 6.3.1 Addolorata Society
               + 6.3.2 Saint Anthony Guild
               + 6.3.3 Altar servers
               + 6.3.4 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine
               + 6.3.5 Holy Name Society
               + 6.3.6 Ushers' Club
               + 6.3.7 St. Vincent De Paul Society
               + 6.3.8 Mount Saint Peter Parish Council

Before starting writing these articles I searched for some good articles to base mine on. For example, these are Featured Articles: Stanford_Memorial_Church and St._Michael%27s_Cathedral,_Qingdao

In the German Wikipedia there is the candidate for Featured Article Kloster Oelinghausen [7], which contains a detailed history of not only the 12th-century convent but the related events and the Featured Article Kloster Leubus [8] which contains a detailed description of the history and personalities of the Abbey.

In the Italian Wikipedia there are for example the Featured Articles Chiesa di San Bernardino da Siena (Amantea) [9] and Chiesa di San Giorgio in Lemine [10].

In the French Wikipedia there are the Featured Articles Abbaye Saint-Victor de Marseille [11] and the Abbaye de Cîteaux [12]

There are many more with similar layout and content - it's something to aspire to. I hope I have made myself clear and welcome feedback. The issue of the civil parish is for another day - I would have thought that the information provided in the articles would have sufficed. Hohenloh ⁺ 04:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly a controversial deletion of the category so its not required to bring it to discussion - its called being bold, a wiki pillar. Churchs don't belong to a civil parish, they belong to ecclesiastical parishes. Civil parishes were sub-divisions of a barony and the only religious link they have to an ecclesiastical parish is that many share the same names and boundaries as Church of Ireland parishes - but that is all - and over the times those boundaries have changed so that they aren't even the same anymore.

Also a church can hardly be a parish in itself never mind a civil parish. That is why it is called a civil parish after all - its not religious. So its misleading and thus the civil parish category should be deleted. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that I had gone out of my way to give due credit to the articles in question. Clearly a lot of hard work went into them. The author deserves full praise (no sarcasm intended). But clearly I was not effusive enough for Hohenloh (sarcasm intended). :-) Anyway the rest of Hohenloh's contribution is off target. Nobody is questioning the merits of the articles, just their categorisation. Nobody was targeting Hohenloh's creations - they just happened to be the only ones in violation of the logic of the category. I must also reject the suggestion that "The issue of the civil parish is for another day"; rather that very issue goes to the heart of this question. Once this question is decided, the articles themselves can continue on their merry way. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As Hohenloh has failed to respond to the critisms to back up his stance, i propose the removal of the category civil parish from the articles as ecclesiastical parishes and civil parishes are not the same thing. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for community clarification on the {{Troubles restriction}} sanction. The thread is at ANI. --RA (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone, for those of you interested in the flora and fauna of the beautiful island of Ireland you are welcome to come help out with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland. It's quite a small WikiProject and we're a little lacking in Ireland enthusiasts at the moment so it would be great to see some new faces. The project deals with organisation of articles regarding plants, animals, conservation and everything in between. Hope to see you there! Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at "Category:Fauna of Ireland", why do they leave out human beings? Surely we are biota as much as any natterjack toad.Red Hurley (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone agree that "Category:Irish expatriates in Iceland" should be deleted? There's one entry, a footballer who has no links to Iceland. Maybe a wind-up?Red Hurley (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it - be bold. I see his last transfer was to Coventry. Send to Coventry / on ice / in Iceland ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I hate pointless cats and there are people on WP who just loved to add them. David Beckham belongs to 44 of them! Bjmullan (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there is the old Icelandic legend of "Peter the Hermit", if you can believe it. An Irish monk who went to a monastery in Iceland and placed himself under the rule of the Abbott there. Then he moved to Rockall where he lived on fish, sea-birds and rainwater. Brendan the Navigator visited him, bringing bread & wine so he could say mass. Peter had no clothing but his hair had grown so long .... - but Wikipedia is (or tries to be) an encyclopedia - so Delete - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly.Red Hurley (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about whether the townland should be added to the introductions of settlement articles. This only applies to settlements that are named after a townland. So far, all those involved agree that they should be included, but we can't agree how they should be included. Any input would be very welcome. ~Asarlaí 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The other issue is as some settlements derive their name from the Anglicised name of the townland they started in, does that mean the Irish derive tag is actually required for the settlement as technically the settlement is derived from the English name of the townland rather than directly from Irish. Obviously we still state that the townland is derived from Irish of course - but placement is the main issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stylewise IMHO all baronies and townlands should be listed below the lede. It's useful info but tends to clutter introductions.Red Hurley (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Other theories have been advanced about the origin of the Fir Bolg. Some scholars have related the name of a Celtic god with the word Bolg http://www.chenbags.com/chanel-bags-c-75.html.[citation needed] The Fir Bolg, according to one legend, were involved in carrying bags of earth at one point in their history, hence the "Men of Bags" interpretation. Others speculate that "Bolg" relates to a word for small boats http://www.chenbags.com/.and www.chenbags.com

Should the titles of the articles on the last kings of GB and Ireland contain the phrase "of the United Kingdom"? Please see Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom#Requested move and comment there if you wish.--Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi I've kicked off a debate about the notability of Gravity Anomalies of Britain and Ireland. This article came to the attention of the rather arcane group of editors at WP:BISE (me amongst them) who debate at length the worthiness of various usages of the term British Isles. My personal view is that the article as it stands is not notable as it is not part of a geographic series of articles, nor is the subject matter of any particular note. I thought it might be useful to ask this projects opinion, before taking to WP:AFD.

This image seems to show that the Britain and Ireland anomalies are related to their position at the edge of the Continental Shelf.

I think this article actually provides a template for what the article should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might - just might - come back to having a Gravity anomalies of BI article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the entire globe, if at all.

We'd appreciate any input you might have here.

Thanks Fmph (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've taken it to AFD. Contribute there if you wish. Fmph (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Waterford and Lismore". The main article in this category, Bishop of Waterford and Lismore states: "The Bishop of Waterford and Lismore is an episcopal title which takes its name after the towns of Waterford and Lismore in the Republic of Ireland. The title was used by the Church of Ireland until 1838, and is still used by the Roman Catholic Church." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Killala". The main article in this category, Bishop of Killala states: "The Bishop of Killala is an episcopal title which takes its name after the town of Killala in County Mayo, Ireland. In the Roman Catholic Church it remains a separate title, but in the Church of Ireland it has been united with other bishoprics." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Meath". The main article in this category, Bishop of Meath states: "The Bishop of Meath is an episcopal title which takes its name after the ancient Kingdom of Meath. In the Roman Catholic Church it remains as a separate title, but in the Church of Ireland it has been united with another bishopric." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Kilmore". The main article in this category, Bishop of Kilmore states: "The Bishop of Kilmore is an episcopal title which takes its name after the parish of Kilmore in County Cavan, Ireland. In the Roman Catholic Church it remains a separate title, but in the Church of Ireland it has been united with other bishoprics." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Kildare". The main article in this category, Bishop of Kildare states: "The Bishop of Kildare was an episcopal title which took its name after the town of Kildare in County Kildare, Ireland. The title is no longer in use by any of the main Christian churches having been united with other bishoprics. In the Roman Catholic Church, the title has been merged with that of the bishopric of Leighlin and is currently held by the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin. In the Church of Ireland, the title has been merged with that of the bishopric of Meath and is currently held by the Bishop of Meath and Kildare." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Given the RC nature of Ireland, this and the other articles are aptly and usefully named as they are. I oppose the renaming of this and the other categories above. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not have made the proposal unless I believed it to be broken. What's broken? That a category is overly restrictive. It needs to be more inclusive as the article upon which it depends is more inclusive. It makes no sense to have a category that only represents the Anglican part of the bishops of a bishopric. Logically, one would then be forced to create a balancing cateoryof "R.C. bishops of Kildare". Given the scarce populations of the bishops categories in general, this would be a division too far. It's not that I'm advocating ecuminisism here. More a case of acknowledging that 2 Christian traditions made use of the same title for their own purposes. In this way, the two sets of named bishopsare closely linked. A separation would be quite mis-leading. It's not like there is not already categories to distinguish between the dioceses of the different traditions. A further splitting along denominational lines would not be warrented. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey all -

A meet up of Irish Wikipedians is planned for the 25th of September. Everyone is invited. More details here...

--RA (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged has marked some County Tipperary categories for speedy deletion. See User talk page for discussion, which should probably move elsewhere. jnestorius^(talk) 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding Slieve rua to this WikiProject. The article is currently a stub, but it appears to be a spam magnet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it spam - just somebody who isn't very experienced at creating articles and thought the info would be interesting. I'd say it'll settle down now. Scolaire (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this now. By co-incidence, I had deleted some categories from the page which were superflous and added the Mayo category which rolls up into all the other cats anyway. Shurely you didn;t number me among the spam merchants :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW is this Slieve Rua or Mullaghmore? --RA (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd be Mullaghmore if this Geograph pic is accurately described. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 409 articles to be referenced. A list of all projects that are being tracked can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)