Recently some users have been adding the barony and (sometimes the Roman Catholic diocese) into the lead section of some Irish towns and villages. For example, Nenagh's intro now reads:

Nenagh ([ˈniːnæ]; Aonach Urmhumhan in Irish) is a town in the barony of Ormond Lower, North Tipperary in Ireland. It is the administrative centre of North Tipperary County Council. It is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe. In 2006 it had a recorded population of 7415.

whereas from its creation in September 2003 until April 2010, it was similar to this:

Nenagh ([ˈniːnæ]; Aonach Urmhumhan in Irish) is the county town of North Tipperary, Ireland. It is the administrative capital of North Tipperary and has a population of 7,415.^[1]

I have no objection to this material being added to articles, just not in the lead section. Baronies are historical subdivisions of counties dating from the middle ages and ceased to exist legally in 1898. The only current legal subdivisions of counties are Local Electoral Areas and District Electoral Divisions. I think it is confusing and misleading to mention baronies in the lead section and it implies they have some sort of legal status or that they are in every day use, when they are not. Have you ever asked anyone from Ireland whereabouts they are from and received a barony as the answer? If you are going to put in baronies then you could put in the ancient Gaelic kingdoms as well. The common usage for towns and villages is: X is a town in County Y in Ireland. I propose that any mention of a barony take place in the history section not the lead.

Also, I see no reason why one religion (albeit the majority one) gets mentioned in the lead. Surely Nenagh (and other towns) are in parishes/dioceses of the Church of Ireland, and other religions. Again, I have no objection to this information but it should not go in the lead as it implicitly gives the RC church some sort of special postion. Snappy (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Retain. The purpose of the inclusion of the barony is not to give a pretended legal validity to the barony, it is to assist the reader in identifying the location. This can often be very important for the smaller entities where townlands of the same name exist in the same county: only the barony can distinguish them. So they serve a useful purpose in leading the reader down a logical path or hierarchy based on in creasing levels of geographic specificity. In those cases where the convention (not to give it too grand a word) is used, the triple explanation from barony to county to state, is clickable. This is particularly useful for those readers pursuing genealogical research from overseas. In many cases, the records from Ellis Island, for example, will include the barony. The convention also puts relatively small entities like townlands in their historic context or milieu. In this regard, baronies often overlap with the ancient Gaelic kingdoms mentioned above (Irish: tuatha). Again, the main article on Barony (Ireland) is very good at setting this historico-geographical context. Should there be any doubt in the reader's mind, he can click the link that is always present per the convention. If he does not click it, then he knows what it means. Let's not attribute too much ignorance to the readers. Regarding the RC religion, you mention one very good reason why it should be in the lead: it's "the majority one". Common usage would lead us to conclude that most people would expect to see it there. Many articles on small towns make little reference to anything not associated with the church which is generally the focus for most community life. To pretend otherwise in the case of rural Ireland is just a po-faced. You also mention another reason why it should be there: it's "special postion", as mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland until 1973. Lastly, I would have no objection to the CoI parish being mentioned if somebody cares to research it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was about my edits on the similar to Northern Ireland places. Obviously someone else has taken a shine to the idea. Personally i leave it to the end of the first paragraph in the lede for example: Tobermore. On that i am currently creating barony and civil parish articles for NI. My only objection is to the use of RC parishes as subsets of a barony - a barony is divided into civil parishes (which ironically were based on CoI parishes, which where based on the original RC parishes). Civil parishes were used as a subset of a barony before partition. I don't object to the listing of the RC parish but seperate from the barony as its not associated withit unless the RoI decided to make them so. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are nearly all valid arguments for inclusion of this data but no valid reason has been advanced as to why obscure medieval sub divisions with no legal status should be mentioned in the lead. It only adds clutter and gives an implicit suggestion of legal status. All US towns are X is a town in Y County in X State, all of which have legal status. As Laurel Lodged pointed out, this information is useful to readers, but are you suggesting that if this info is in the history section and not the lead, the reader will be unable to find it? Please credit the readers with a bit more cop on.

I don't see any mention of baronies on any Irish towns official website. The other country that has baronies is England, and I don't see any English towns with baronies mentioned in the lead section, though correct me if there are examples.

The Church and State exist separately in Ireland. The special position of the RC church in the constitution from lasted from 1937-73, how is that a reason for including the RC diocese in the lead. Yes, lots of small towns / villages are defined by the local church, but today they exist separately of it. As for the RC church a focus for community life, you could make the same argument for the local GAA club. Snappy (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the lede is suppossedly to be a summary of whats in the article and many ledes contain information not found in the article. I don't see any harm in stating its historical units in the lede however i don't think they should be given so much prominence such as straight after the declaration of the place as has been done for Nenagh. It should be moved down the pecking order. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mabuska. Bjmullan (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also they aren't obscure medieval units. Baronies where in use right up until the 18th century. Civil parishes unlike baronies haven't been formally abolihsed in NI or the RoI so they aren't obscure medieval units but units that still exist. The RoI's Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 makes clear reference to parishes. NI was still redrawing the boundaries of its civil parishes up till the 1960s. As civil parishes are meant to be sub-divisions of a barony (even though many crossed barony boundaries), it doesn't hurt to show what barony it was a sub-division of. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely with Snappy above re mention of baronies and parishes in the lede. Of course they have a place in an article due to their religious and historical significance, but further down or in their own section. I've made many references to civil parishes in articles I've created/edited, but have usually given them a small section of their own. I've rarely mentioned baronies, though (partly because my sources have not given them much, if any, mention). Hohenloh ⁺ 23:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a concensus that both the civil parish and barony material as well as the denominational parish(es) material are GOOD THINGS. The notion that the civil parish and barony material is medieval and without legal significance has been shown to be false. The question to be decided now is where in the article they should go. The options being presented so far are: (1) In the lead, (2) In the lead but far down the lead, (3) Elsewhere in the main body of the article. Can we have votes for 1,2, or 3 please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not many people have commented yet, so lets not rush to close the discussion. I never said civil parishes were medieval, I said baronies were, but as Mabushka has pointed they were only used until the 18th century and finally legally abolished in 1898, which makes them over a century out of date. Also, no one has demonstrated that they are in common usage, no examples of any town website detailing its location in a barony, in the same way counties are. No examples of English towns which would have been located in baronies as well, have been given. Snappy (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(2) - i see no problem of it being in the lede, just not at the very start as the editor of Nenagh did. Its only a short sentence that doesn't warrant its own section and doesn't clutter the lede up. It doesn't detract from these articles: Upperlands or Tobermore when placed somewhere appropriate in the lede. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we continue to discuss this for a few more days and let other editors contribute? Why the rush to vote? After all, as the guidelines say polling discourages consensus. Snappy (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this issue is now just about baronies? I do have to agree that there is no common usage of them anymore. Though if and when the civil parish article is created for that civil parish the barony can be mentioned in the lede of it instead as they were formerly part of a barony.Mabuska ^(talk) 13:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snappy on the religious aspect - if Nenagh was the seat of a bishopric that could be in the lede, but it's just a parish and so is everywhere else. Baronies - useful for property transfers, but probably not in the lede. You could otherwise get into which constituency it is in and which boy scout area, ad nauseam, all of which belong below. N is an administratively central town - that should be in the lede.Red Hurley (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On baronies, the Place Names Database of Ireland which produces the Irish names for places to be used by the government of the Irish Republic and Place Names NI which produces authoritive Irish names for places in Northern Ireland both include the barony in any town or townland page. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's good enough for both governments, then it's good enough for me. :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Searching for Nenagh in logainm return 2 entries, 1 for the town, 1 for the civil parish. The barony data is detailed in the civil parish entry, there is no mention of a barony in the Nenagh town entry. The wikipedia article is about the town not the civil parish. Snappy (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nenagh other than Belfast is one of the few examples where i've been unable to find somewhere that doesn't have an associated townland with which the barony is also listed. As the townland is a subset of a civil parish which is a subset of a barony i can understand the barony declaration in that sense - though i would need to see more areas with no associated namesake townlands to be sure. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, logainm is a places database, which isn't the same as a Wikipedia article about a town. I still don't see any convincing argument for putting the barony in the lead, rather than the history section. As Red Hurley, pointed out the Dáil constituency is far more important and relevant to readers, so why shouldn't that go into the lead too. Rather than having: A is a town in County B, in the Province of C, in the barony of D, in the civil parish of E, in the Dáil constituency of F and European Parliament constituency of G etc., we could keep it short and simple and have: A is a town in County B, with all the other relevant info detailed in the rest of the article. Snappy (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Nenagh introduction again i actually see no problem with the mention of the Roman Catholic diocese as the sentence is just informing the reader that Nenagh is also a parish and what diocese it is a parish of. In terms of disambiguity i can see no problem with it. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much agreement, so how about a compromise which would be similar to below:

Nenagh ([ˈniːnæ]; Aonach Urmhumhan in Irish) is the county town of North Tipperary in Ireland. It is the administrative capital of North Tipperary and in 2006 it had a recorded population of 7,415.^[1] It is in the barony of Ormond Lower, and is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe.

Any thoughts? Snappy (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, seems that no-one has any objections, so this seems like the best solution, and similar to Mabuska's proposal. Snappy (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a consensus then? No need to proceed to the vote that Snappy requested be postponed pending a fuller discussion? I didn't hear the clanging of the division bells. Was I asleep for that part? Well I suppose that I can live with Snappy's fait accompli but I am skeptical of the general applicability of the formula. For those one-horse-towns (not to mention townlands) that contain nothing particularly remarkable, I foresee this formula coming unstuck. Let's monitor developments for a while. We might need to re-visit this "consensus" in the near future. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your obsession with voting, Wikipedia is not a democracy! I asked twice if anyone objected and no one replied, even though the main contributors in the debate were posting elsewhere on this page, so I assumed it to a sign of consent and yes a consensus (one without sarcastic quotes). I don't understand how the formula is not generally applicable, this is how 90% of Irish towns are at present, i.e. the ones where you haven't inserted a barony mention in the first sentence. Of course, this consensus maybe revisited at any time in the future. Snappy (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Like children everywhere, Stephen Dedalus wrote his details in his geography textbook as follows:

Stephen Dedalus

Class of Elements

Clongowes Wood College

Sallins

County Kildare

Ireland

Europe

The World

The Universe

We do not need unwieldy and frustrating article leads that read like this: Bekan is a village in the former Parliamentary Division of South Mayo, in the former Poor Law Union of Claremorris, in the former Constabulary District of Claremorris, Sub-District of Cloontumper, in the former District Electoral Division of Bekan, in the Townland of Bekan, in the former Barony of Bekan, in the former Civil Parish of Bekan, in the Roman Catholic Parish of Bekan, in County Mayo, in Connacht Province, Ireland. But such information is part of the story of Bekan and, where known, belongs in body of the article.

As Snappy argues, the lead is an introduction, and as such, should contain only summary location information, such as Bekan is a village and townland near Ballyhaunis in County Mayo, Ireland. Including other details in the lead such as barony or civil parish would usually be an arbitrary and unnecessary selection from the many categories available.

The reasons for including these data at all is that administrative divisions exist or existed and are part of the narrative, structure and definition of a place, past and present; and many now-obsolete divisions appear on old census forms and other documents and are useful data for historical and genealogical researchers, and interested people generally. --O'Dea (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I proposed the addition of some content relating to famines in India to FA India. It's been stripped down for various reasons and the current statement reads something like:

We are looking to form a consensus on whether and how this content can be included in India. If you have an interest, please participate in the discussion at Talk:India#Famine.2C_starvation_deaths_during_British_era and other relevant sections on the same page. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article British Empire has a British_Empire#Legacy section but it does not contain the Indian view point the the empire was generally despised in India. It there are sources stating that the situation was similar in other parts of the world, like Ireland, I would like to add a {{POV}} tag to the article's Legacy section. Please point to sources per WP:Sources if you are aware of any. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Start with Great Famine (Ireland) and scroll down to the genocide section. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Need some input here Template_talk:British_Isles#Title . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest WT:BISE rather than here. Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place here. --RA (talk) 08:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged has been unilaterally substituting links and categories relating to County Dublin with links to the four Dublin local authorities. User:Laurel Lodged claims consensus on this but I cannot find any reference. A recent discussion regarding distinction between Dublin City and County Dublin categories led to a outcome of “no consensus”. If there is a consensus to do this, and someone can point it out to me, then I will respect that. Otherwise I personally cannot accept User:Laurel Lodged’s assertion that following the Local Government Act 2001 (an incorrect citation since the new authorities were created under the Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993) that Dublin is an “ex-county”.

In this regard, I would point out that:

• Postal addresses in these regions continue to use “County Dublin”. Indeed, the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council itself gives its address on its own website as “County Hall, Marine Road, Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, IRELAND”;
• County Dublin remains an administrative region for the purposes of registering and taxing of motor vehicles;
• The most recent Ordnance Survey Map of Dublin (OSi Discover #50, 2010 Edition) shows county boundaries between Dublin and Wicklow, Meath and Kildare but does not show any county boundary (or any other boundary) between the four Dublin authorities;
• I am quite sure that the geography education curriculum in Ireland (North and South) still teaches that there are 32 counties in Ireland: 26 in the Republic of Ireland and 6 in Northern Ireland. For geographical purposes – and the articles that I am interested in that User:Laurel Lodged has changed are geographical articles – County Dublin continues to exist.

Given that the Post Office, the Revenue Commissioners, the Ordnance Survey and the Department of Education all apparently consider County Dublin to exist, I think it fair to say that “official Ireland” still believes that there is a County Dublin. I would also add that, as an ex-employee of two of the four Dublin authorities, neither I nor any of my former colleagues ever considered the four authorities to have superseded the old County Dublin. In this regard I would also note that Tipperary is considered a county even though it has had the administrative regions of Tipperary North Riding and Tipperary South Riding since 1898. I trust this puts the matter to bed or do I have to bring the GAA into it?

- Joe King (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not bring the GAA into it? Wasn't Tipp magnificent on Sunday? So much for "5 in a row". Not this decade.

I have not been acting unilaterally. My original proposal to merge the two Dublin cats was rejected. The model of London was advanced as the model to follow - it having many authorities in the region commonly known as London city. There was agreement to create categories for the 4 Dublin authorities and to populate them with the usual sub-categories. I have taken both these precedents as permission to do likewise to the 2 Tipperary entities. My interpretation of the policy has been upheld by the administrator User:Fastily (see my talk page for verification).

There is only one authority in the state for deciding on local governement - the Oireachtas. No other organ of stae may presume to contradict its enactments. And none do. Parts of Meath are in the Dublin postal district. Does this qualify as approval by “official Ireland" for the appropriation of Meath land by County Dublin (or indeed Fingal)? I don't think so. How An Post chooses to organise itself is up to An Post. It's admin decisions have no wider impact and are incapable of conferring legitimacy.

I agree that the OSI should get its act together. Google Maps is far more useful for deliniating the bounds of the 4 Dublin authorities.

re motor vehicles. You do know that there's a "L" and a "LK", don't you? Isn't this a tacit admission that Limerick City is a County (which it is)? So doesn't that bring the RoI tally to 27 counties if you insist on using motor vehicles taxation as your yardstick?

Educational curriculum. It probably also teaches about the Roman Empire and other great historical entities. That does not mean that Caesar's writ runs in Londinium or Ephesis these days. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the Oireachtas or anybody else has authority "for deciding on local governement" [sic] has absolutely nothing to do with it. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Cats are decided by common practice and consensus, not by Acts of the Oireachtas or Civil Service departments. "County Fingal" and "County Dun Laoghaire and Rathdown" are not used in common parlance, and I am under the impression that there was no attempt to establish consensus for moving cats, just as there was no consensus for merging Dublin City and County. Cats are not the personal plaything of any editor, and justifying unilateral and unpopular moves with "The law states..." will not cut any ice here. Scolaire (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And since you're in favour of bringing in the GAA, how many of the starting fifteen were from Tipperary North and how many from Tipperary South? Do you even know which "county" Thurles is in? I don't. Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As Scolaire says this decision depends on what the consensus at Wikipedia is. You have not been able to point to a consensus decision regarding these categories or to changing wikilinks in articles from County Dublin to SDCC, DLR, whatever. The views of one administrator are irrelevant in this context. Nor can you dismiss the evidence of An Post, OSI and D/Education. They are all bodies that exist under statute of the Oireachtas and carry out their functions in accordance with the legislation enacted by the Oireachtas. No member of the Oireachtas has said that these bodies are wrong to refer to Dublin as a county. You have ignored my point that at least one of these authorities describes itself as being in County Dublin, an entity you claim does not exist. As far as I am concerned you are nothing more than a vandal. - Joe King (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and your suggestion that Google Maps is superior to OSI is laughable. This is the same Google that thinks Derrybawn Mountain is in fact Trooperstown Hill. And has a rather vague idea as to where the summits of many of Ireland's mountains actually are. - Joe King (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thurles is in that part of the state under the jurisdiction of North Tipperary County Council. It says so in legislation. Prior to that, it was in the administrative county of Tipperary (North Riding), which the same legislation abolished. Prior to that, it was in the judicial county of Tipperary. Prior to that, it was in the Barony of Eliogarty. Prior to that, it was in the Kingdom of Eile (Ely O'Carroll). Prior to that, it was under the sway of the Eoghanacht. Prior to that, it all gets a bit foggy. To Joe King - cool your jets. Wikipedia is no place for personal abuse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed! Well, not really, since I know you've been editing the article. And the starting fifteen? Or even the subs? How about the losing football semi-finalists (and how did they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?) - how many were Fingallians and how many Dun-Laoghaire-Rathdownians? And how do you say that anyway? If it's a bona fide county there must be a name for its inhabitants. Scolaire (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The unilateral attempted one-man abolition of County Dublin categories in the encyclopaedia is flagrant vandalism without consensus (agreement by one administrator is insufficient) and a profound structural disruption. The county has been split only in an administrative sense while the original county persists in many ways, officially and unofficially, and remains widely recognised as a legitimate category as others have pointed out, above. The county has not simply disappeared into thin air — not even in the minds of the politicians and administrators who operate within the new structures. The creation of three new county structures was a parallel creation, not a destruction of the old county, which has not gone away. The legislation did not abolish County Dublin; it created new administrative entities within it. People in Northern Ireland continue to use the old county names when discussing the place, alongside the new administrative structures. The emergence of one does not cancel the other; there is a coexistence of new and old categories for different needs, applications and purposes. I am relieved to discover that this conversation has been started because the slash-and-burn of many established Dublin categories in Wikipedia without any consensus is alarming and without legitimacy. --O'Dea (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for panic; neither the Conty Dublin page nor the Category:County Dublin page has disappeared, nor will they. Some sub-categories of Category:County Dublin (such as Headlands (with 1 page - Howth)) have been deleted. But fear not - there has been no loss of information. Howth Head is now nestled in the Category:Geography of Fingal County. This is its proper home as Fingal County Council has jurisdiction over Howth and all of Fingal County. Many sub-categories of Category:County Dublin will never be deleted. For instance "History", "People from Dublin". It would be impossible to extricate them and an exercise in futulity. The same may not be said for other sub-cats; those with a heavy geographic bias can and should move to their natural homes. At the moment, most of the geographic type cats are being put inot 1 overall wrapper e.g. Category:Geography of Fingal County. This is just to assist in the heavy lifting. It does not preclude the possibility that at some time in the future it might be a good idea to break it into further sub-cats (e.g. Rivers, Mountains etc). At the moment the population of the cat does not warrent it, but that may all change. If I was to get some assistance in this heavy lifting, the process of sub-cat creation could be speeded up. One final complaint, I think that the dissing of Administrators that has gone on in this thread is a disgrace and should stop. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The rivers and mountains of Dublin are in County Dublin, a persistent geographic category, and that is the location taught in geography courses. One sees in Dublin administrative planning documents concerning management of the River Dodder that South Dublin and Dublin City agree to pool administrative and research resources, and to act in a mutually coordinated way to create plans for the care of the transcendent entity, the river, which winds its way from the mountains to the sea, oblivious to administrative borders. The river transcends those categories, so the new administrative county bodies, in a sense, deliberately dissolve their own boundaries in administrative partnership to cooperate with each other in recognition of that boundary-transcending physical Dodder reality. They are flexible enough to realise that the Dodder is not just in South Dublin, or in Dublin City, but has a larger presence, reflected by the more all-embracing term County Dublin, the legitimacy of which persists without friction or question for most people living in the county. It is alien to Dublin geographic realities to apply new county definitions which have been established purely for bureaucratic convenience, especially when these new administrative entities themselves demonstrate a sharp awareness of the need to operate and exist beyond their own administrative definitions and identities, as described. The new counties were not established to erase or cancel the entity, County Dublin, but only to streamline its administration, its interior clockwork; not to dismantle the rich cultural heritage and lived physical realities of the county. --O'Dea (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Howth Head, considered as a geographic object, belongs in a geographic category, County Dublin. It was never intended by the legislation to shoehorn the headland into what is essentially a piece of bureaucratic machinery called Fingal County, which serves a different function. It is a simple category mistake. --O'Dea (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Observation: There is another aspect to all this that requires urgent consideration: User:Laurel_Lodged has unilaterally removed all Category:Mountains and hills of County Dublin tags from all articles about mountains in County Dublin, then he proposed Category:Mountains and hills of County Dublin as a candidate for speedy deletion because it was now empty! Such breathtaking wholesale unilateralist destruction is vandalism. Such definitive activity on such a scale must be discussed and agreed beforehand, or else anyone could trample his muddy boots destructively and carelessly all over other people's work. Fortunately I saw the empty category before the speedy deletion occurred, and rescued it in time, but it forced me to re-tag a bundle of mountain articles; in other words, I was forced to waste my time undoing User:Laurel_Lodged's assault on the county. It is instructive to read the contribution history of this user to see the destructive zeal for erasing existing categories in many other articles beyond Dublin. --O'Dea (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"I have taken both these precedents as permission to do likewise to the 2 Tipperary entities. My interpretation of the policy has been upheld by the administrator User:Fastily" The second sentence has nothing to do with the first one. What the admin said at User talk:Laurel Lodged#Stop was:

I've deleted the categories under speedy deletion criterion C1 because they are empty and have been tagged with a {{db-c1}} for more than 4 days. Policywise, Laurel Lodged's tags are correct. Jnestorius, if you still feel there is a need for the categories, you may recreate them, but be sure to populate them, otherwise, they will only be deleted again.

The admin was commenting on my use of the {{hangon}} tag and said nothing about the depopulation of the categories which preceded their speedy-deletion. jnestorius^(talk) 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"The rivers and mountains of Dublin are in County Dublin, a persistent geographic category". This is untrue. The rivers and mountains are persistent; County Dublin, like all man-made institutions is transitory. See Thurles above for a litany of transitiory entities. Only sophistry would combine these two things into the same sentance. To which county then would you allocate the River Shannon? Is it not accurate to list all the counties through which it flows? By this logic the River Liffey should be listed in the Cat:geography of counties Wicklow, Kildate, South Dublin, Fingal and Dublin City. Conversely, where a geographic feature such as Howth Head is confined to just one county (Fingal), why would it be mentioned in another? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"The admin was commenting on my use of the {{hangon}} tag ". It wuld be more accurate to say that the Admin was commenting of your abuse of the tag. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, there are several different issues involved in Laurel Lodge's recent blitz of category changes and I don't think it's helpful to tangle them together:

1. moving articles from category "Foos of Dublin/Tipperary" to category "Foos of Fingal/SouthTipp/etc"
2. deleting category "Foos of Dublin/Tipperary" instead of leaving it as a supercategory of "Foos of Fingal/SouthTipp/etc"
3. merging categories "Rivers of SouthTipp" and "Mountains of SouthTipp" into "Geography of SouthTipp"
4. an overarching excessive boldness and lack of prior consultation

While Odea and I both object to 4, Odea seems to disagree strongly with 1 whereas I don't. My objections are to 2 and 3. jnestorius^(talk) 19:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Regarding 1, the issue is not just confined to the categories. User:Laurel Lodged is also unilaterally changing the leads in articles from "XYZ is a Foo on County Dublin/Tipp" to "XYZ is a Foo in County Fingal/South Tipp/etc.". Relevant fields in related infoboxes are also being changed. I object to this as well as category changes (although I wouldn't object to, say, "XYZ is a Foo in County Dublin. It lies in the administrative area of Fingal County Council". I also object to 2, 3 and 4. - Joe King (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is quite disruptive behavior and should be taken much more seriously by Laurel Lodged than I believe he/she is doing so. He/she might believe that he/she is on solid ground but this kind of behavior is not welcome. Emptying out entire categories and then nominating them for speedy deletion is not as clever as I believe he/she thinks it is. Neither is the slow-burn edit warring (e.g. 1, 2, 3).

This is even before we discuss the merits of his/her additions. example: "County Dublin was one of the counties of the Kingdom of Ireland (and later the United Kingdom..." Eh - County Dublin was a local authority area until 1994 so he/she can add the Republic of Ireland to that list also; but more to the point: County Dublin has gone nowhere. As Joe King points out, it is a relevant geographic area used in Ireland today. Speaking of it in the past tense is a fringe POV.

To follow jnestorius' lead of untangling things, what are we discussing in this thread?

1. Was Laurel Lodged acting with consensus?
2. Should Laurel Lodged dissist in making these kind of edits?
3. Are we going to undo these edits?
4. Is there desire to discuss any of them?
5. What should happen to Laurel Lodged?

I think it's clear that the answer so (1) and (2) are 'no' and 'yes' respectively. I think the answer to (3) is 'yes' also - but it is quite a lot of work to undo. I think the answer to (4) is 'maybe' (the question of whether e.g. cat Tipp S/Tipp N should exist and be a subcat of Tipp). As for (5), I think the community the community needs to spell out that Laurel Lodged has to to accept that his/her POV on this matter is a fringe theory and that if he/she continues with this approach to editing, the community will take away his/her editing privileges. --RA (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Scolaire (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Agree 100% - Joe King (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by Scolaire's agreement. Is this the same Scolaire who contributed to the discussion on Wikiproject Ireland: Splitting Dublin. In that thread, Scolaire opposed the merger on the grounds that " but somebody with the time and the inclination should remove Category:County Dublin from all Dublin City-specific articles, since they are already in the sub-cat". I was convinced by this and other arguments and ended up opposing my own proposal. Now I find Scolaire opposing his own proposal. All very strange. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You've made sure to get your ad hominem in here before proposing to lay aside ad hominem. Nice one! See, there is not a single diff in this entire discussion, so I can't see what it is you've been doing. I assumed, because that is what the discussion suggested, that what you were doing was replacing County Dublin with County Fingal or whatever. There is clearly no consensus for doing that. If what you're doing is adding County Fingal as well as County Dublin, then I disagree with that for the same reason that I disagree with having County Dublin as well as Dublin City. In a nutshell, a place within the city should be in Category:Dublin; a place outside the city should be in Category:County Dublin - straightforward, common sense and the consensus view. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's lay aside the ad hominem attacks and stick with the substantive issues. Turning to Jnestorious's list of alleged misdemeanors: "deleting category "Foos of Dublin/Tipperary" instead of leaving it as a supercategory of "Foos of Fingal/SouthTipp/etc". This is in fact 3 different questions.

1. Should the category of "Education in North Tipp" be created withinin the Cat:North Tipp? I believe the answer is "yes" and I'd be very interested in any views to the contrary.
2. Should those articles currently in the category "Education in Tipp" (e.g. colleges and schools in a given physical location) be moved to the Category that most immediately includes them (i.e. Cat:Education in North Tipp)? I believe the answer is "yes" and I'd be very interested in any views to the contrary.
3. Such a logical process will inevitably result in the emptying of all schools from the less immediate cat to the most immediate cat. What do you do when this results in the emptying of the Cat:Education in Tipp? Do you leave the cat in some kind of zombie half life? I believe that the answer to this is "no". It was for this very reason that the {{hangon}} tag exists.

As it's late I'll turn to the third in Jnestorius's list of alleged misdemeanors tomorrow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on point 3; and don't understand "It was for this very reason that the {{hangon}} tag exists.". jnestorius^(talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Joe King, RA and O'Dea have stated the position I agree with very well. While I am reluctant to bring an ANI or RfC/U one of these options may be the only way to halt Laurel Lodged's disruptive editing. ww2censor (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the position of RA, as outlined above in 5 questions section. Snappy (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Joe King's 5 points, I think a decision on 4 (discussing) should be reached before a decision on 3 (undoing). If, say, it is decided to keep towns categorised into North and South Tipp, then some of the edits that brought this about should be kept, rather than first undone and then redone. jnestorius^(talk) 19:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (I suspect we're going to disagree, but the Tipp/NTipp/STipp etc. question is a perfectly valid discussion.) Is there anything else from these edits anyone wants discussed? --RA (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just back from a break and I have to admit I find LL's approach to editing tedious, to say the least. I agree with Joe King, RA, O'Dea above, also the observations made by ww2censor (talk) and Snappy. Hohenloh ⁺ 23:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything else anyone wants discussed? Yes. I haven't had time to analyse the trend of User:Laurel Lodged's similar swathe-cutting through many articles on Irish nobility, so I have not discovered his logic in removing so many people from the Category:Irish nobility, such as Baron Inchiquin, to cite an example. One problem is that Lodge doesn't bother his arse to write the sort of edit summaries that might reveal his thinking. So, could Laurel address this question, please: Why are you stripping nobles of their category? --O'Dea (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and leaving "Lists of Irish monarchs" and "European royal families", both piped to "Thomond"?[1] A sense of proportion seems to be lacking, there. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The contribution above is out of chronological order. Why? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it follows from what O'Dea said, and would have been impossible to understand if I'd added it after your response. Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Language please User:Odea - children might be watching. No noble has been stripped. Simply eliminating double or triple duplication with the Nobility moves. In every case, a noble category existed for the family. For example the Cat:MacCarthy dynasty logically reports to the Cat:Ancient Irish dynasties which reports to the Cat:Irish noble families which reports to the Cat:Irish nobility. All very ordered, hierarchical and logical, I'm sure you'll agree. And no losss of information. The reader is led logicaly from the highly general to the highly specific. The only nobles now left in the Cat:Irish Nobility can anomalies with no natural home. I was thinking of creating a Cat:Noble Irish Women or Cat:Irish Nobility (women) as this would effectively purge the remainder of the Cat:Irish nobility and redress a glaring gender imbalance. While The UK has female equivalents for all ranks of nobility (countesses, duchesses, baronesses etc), Ireland does not have the numbers to warrent such excessive sub-categorisation. IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you were thinking of creating these new cats, would you not think of opening a new thread here and telling people what you're thinking, and asking them if they agree? On current form, it's odds-on they won't. Unilateral batch re-arrangement of cats without discussion is disruptive. Have you not copped that yet? Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The language of User:Scolaire seems to lack a sense of proportion. In the kangaroo court that this thread has degenerated into, I am automatically guilty. No need for evidence anymore; if I wrote it, then it must be wrong. Well guys, I've news for you - I created no new cats in Irish Nobility. They already existed. Let's not loose sight of the fact that this is an encyclopedia - the rule of science, not passionate partisanship is supposed to prevail. For that reason, order, logic and hierarchy are always to be preferred over disorder and duplication. Ad hominem reminder number 2 for User:Scolaire: tackle the ball, not the man. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Woah! "would you not think of opening a new thread here and telling people what you're thinking?" - that's the ball. "The language of User:Scolaire seems to lack a sense of proportion" - that's the man; "In the kangaroo court that this thread has degenerated into, I am automatically guilty. No need for evidence anymore; if I wrote it, then it must be wrong" - that's off the chart! I did not mean to imply that any idea of yours is "wrong", only that the majority on this page seem to prefer an approach that is different from yours. If you want to prove me wrong, you should initiate a calm discussion. Since the remark is open to misinterpretation, I am striking it. By the way, can you provide a diff for reminder number one? I'm not sure where that was. Scolaire (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Those objectionable comments from Laurel Lodged above, referring on this occasion to Scolaire, are laughable, coming from someone who has been making personal attacks on other editors over the past few months (as can be seen from his contributions). It is Wikipedia policy not to make personal attacks other editors! Blue Luger (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! the fickleness of human nature. We all object to personal attacks other editors but then can't resist the temptation of one last dig, can we? Laughable, isn't it? Lord make me a believer, but not yet. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What kind of an "overview" did Category:Irish nobility present before my efforts? Why do we need a category in which one has to potentially click on "next 200" several times before reaching the page that contains the names of the Earl of Ormond along with the names of more than 150 other men? Also, WP:Categorization#What categories should be created says: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles." Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Should the category of "Education in North Tipp" remain within the Cat:North Tipp? Should it be populated with all the schools, colleges and institutions of education that are located in North Tipperary County?

Support as they are in the immediate county, not the wider historical county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What kind of rubbish is this? Aren't we still discussing all these issues above? Kindly stop these silly proposals and sillier voting. Snappy (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

From other dicussions, I know that User:Snappy has an antipathy to voting. I find that it's the best way to ensure that a consensus has been achieved, but is by no means conclusive. In any case, User:Snappy's concerns are entirely unwarrented in this case as the discussion is just a discussion at this point, though it might proceed to a vote late. The discussion itself was suggested by User:Jnestorius "With regard to Joe King's 5 points, I think a decision on 4 (discussing) should be reached before a decision on 3 (undoing).". If User:Snappy has an issue with User:Jnestorius's suggestion, perhaps he should raise it in his talk page and not unduely clutter this discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, voting is evil! As for cluttering pages, I could never do as good a job as you! Snappy (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the above contribution. I think you've made your intent and motivations perfectly clear to everybody. Perhaps I'm not paranoid after all - maybe they are all out to get get me. :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You say that this is "just a discussion", but discussions don't have posts beginning with "Support" in them. By putting "Support" in your initial posting, you seem to be stating that it's a poll. Which is it? Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the physical location of a building is sufficient in all cases; many institutions have a wider catchment area. But as a first approximation, a more specific location is probably appropriate for most schools. I don't like the name of the category, though: Category:Education in South Tipperary would be shorter and no more ambiguous. jnestorius^(talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A related post is below. --RA (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to prejudice the discussion at 24 above, I'd like to start a discussion (which might or might not proceed to a vote) about the category "Education in County Tipperary". In the hypothetical event of all the listed items in the category being moved to either "Category:Education in North Tipperary County" or "Category:Education in South Tipperary County", should the category remain in existance? Would it be more sensible to delete in that eventuality? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support the deletion in the circumstances described above (you'll not be surprised to read). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral: the hypothetical event is unlikely to occur; I don't !vote on hypothetical proposals. This also goes for number 24 above. Scolaire (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• The category (and all similar categories: I hope we're not going to have a litany of separate sections) should remain as a supercategory of Category:Education in North/South Tipperary and a subcategory of Category:Education in the Republic of Ireland by county. If this arrangement offends a minority of users' sense of parsimony, that minority of users will find it fairly easy to get over it. jnestorius^(talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A related post is below. --RA (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Battle of Duncairn has been tagged as a possible hoax. Can some of you folks have a look at it? I am a regular patroller of CAT:HOAX and not an expert in this area, and I have no way to verify the sources or claims made in this article. Instead of nominating it at AfD right away I thought I'd find an appropriate WikiProject first. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi all —

A while back the British Isles article underwent a peer review. Most of the suggestions coming out of it have been implemented and IMO the article is approaching GA standard. This is an article that had been dogged by POV issues and in-fighting amongst its editors so the achievement of getting it to the standard it is in admirable for all involved. However, one major sticking point is referencing, which are appallingly sparse. There is no way the article could achieve GA as it stands on account of the state of referencing.

The task of fixing it up isn't impossible. There are about 30 paragraphs that need referencing. With enough editors, we would only need to take two or thee paragraphs each to get the job done. To that end, I've set up a "meitheal" page. The idea is for anyone who is willing to help out to take a paragraph at a time and to references just that paragraph. If you can do more than one then great. Just come back and take another one.

The meitheal page is here: Talk:British Isles/Meitheal. If you're willing to help out, just dig in.

Thanks, --RA (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Ireland articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm planning to add an article on this Ulster historian, but don't know much about him / please add what you can. About 28 possible links on wiki.Red Hurley (talk) 10:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I seem to recall some years back that the Software companies of Ireland page had a long list of companies, perhaps numbering in the 100's. It now seems to be reduced to a mere 8! How can companies easily add their company names? Also, how did wikipedia lose that information, even if it was just a mere outdated list? 213.191.244.57 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If a page (such as that about a company) shows up on a Category page, it's because someone has edited the 'company' page and added the category there. Similarly, if its no longer listed on the category page, it's because the category has been removed from the actual article. Companies can't easily add themselves, because company representatives shouldn't be editing their own company articles - it's a conflict of interest. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey all -

Just a quick reminder that a meet-up of Irish Wikipedians will take place this Saturday at the Kingston Hotel in Dún Laoghaire.

More info is here. Hope to see you all there!

--— RA (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would like that but can't this year.Red Hurley (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Won't be there and don't intend to make the effort lol - too far out of my way and will end up feeling trivial and out of place. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Would also like to attend but I'll be busy unfortunately. Maybe next year. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 00:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• copyright issues with List of Special Areas of Conservation in the Republic of Ireland so I created Temp Page until copyright issues are resolved. Any views. Mrchris (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Could an administrator offer advice to help resolved this issue. Mrchris (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all who made it to the meet-up last Saturday. It was a great experience.

For anyone who couldn't make it but is interested in knowing how it got on, I've made a summary that can be seen on the Ireland meet-up talk page.

--RA (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Anybody able to help cite and reference the Start Class Siege of Drogheda article? It has been sat in this approximate state since mid 2009 with very little done to improve the content and references for much of even the most rudimentary content. I have attempted to raise this article with cite fags, but these have since been reverted. Please see the talk page for further details. Koncorde (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm a bit stuck for time at the moment, I've started referencing and to a small degree re-formatted the article. I don't think it's too bad, compared to some others I've seen - there was no incorrect information in the part I edited - it just needed refs and re-formatting. It mainly needs a copy-edit now and a thorough check of the last section. Hohenloh ⁺ 23:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a request that this article should be moved to Coillte, and I wondered what the view is. Teoranta carries the information about the type of company, but apparently the company refers to itself as Coillte. If we went with the commonly-used name, what would that be? Charles Matthews (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this not being discussed at the relevant Talk Page? RashersTierney (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've chipped in on the talk page. --RA (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I created article Aghaviller (talk) which is a National Monuments in County Kilkenny. Mrchris (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to draw attention to this article. It was a red link on the Waterford article. Spraoi festival gets a crowd of over 80,000 each year. There is not one picture of it on Commons and practically no info on it on wiki so surely someone who looks in here knows stuff about Spraoi. ~ R.T.G 14:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 99 freely licenced images on Flickr here and another 7 here. There should be enough choice in those. Flickr user Infomatique has loads of other Irish images licenced under a free Creative Commons licence. ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

None of informatiques pictures are of the Waterford festival (informatique pasted a large sheet of information on to each of their St Patricks Day pictures with the Irish word for "play", "spraoi" on it somewhere) while the other users Banking Crisis and What's a party? are hardly illustrative of 80,000 people (lol) overtaking a city come to lfe with street theatre and music... though the effort is appreciated and i have found a lot more pics of the Spraoi on flikr only that I've looked through them all, a couple hundred maybe, and if they werent all skewed there was no crowd or if there was a crowd there was no performers so the request still stands if anyone has that nice posey picture of a stage or something of Spraoi please add it/them. Best pics I found... [2] [3] [4] ([5]<- this might be a good picture but it's a scene from a back alley...) [6] ~ R.T.G 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh well! I tried. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox place Ireland}} doesn't seem to support country= parameter? Mrchris (talk) 1:11 pm, Today (UTC−4)

We actually have a discussion on this and we have agreed to its inclusion however we've stalled recently over wording of the Republic of Ireland. Heres the link. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Most editors favoured "state" rather than "country". ~Asarlaí 13:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean most editors supported a compromise that was to use "state". Mabuska ^(talk) 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested almost six months ago that this timeline should be split into decades. It's a detailed and well-sourced article, but it has grown so big that it takes forever to load – the current size is 329k. Some input on the talk page would be welcome.
~Asarlaí 15:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A discussion is under way at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion about whether {{Template:British Isles}} should be deleted or not, or if its title should be renamed, and what names might be desirable. --O'Dea (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Could I invite views on Irish nobility. The article has changed in focus since the contributions of DinDriathou. Before then, the article pertained to Gaelic nobles, peers of the Lordship of Ireland and the Kingdom of Ireland and peers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It then changed to refer to Gaelic nobles, "medieval nobility of foreign origin" and stated that "nobility originating from the so-called Kingdom of Ireland onwards, and with few exceptions not generally accepted as 'Irish'".

I raised POV/V issues with these statements. A series of moves/reverts have put the article now at Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland. While that is not altogether a problem topic, it is quite an odd choice for an article and it is not clear what the article is "about". In my view, one article dealing with Gaelic titles (including Gaelicised Normans) and one dealing with "English" titles (see Peerage of Ireland) might be more appropriate.

That may be the intention behind the move, but other views would be appreciated.--RA (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

More confused allegations of I'm not sure what. The problem was perhaps always principally with the title of the article. I'm not trying to own it but I do have far more background in the subject than any current regular editor, and have been trying to make the article as friendly as possible. Separating them will improperly exclude the Hiberno-Norman families from modern "Gaeldom", but at the same time adding every single family in the Peerage of Ireland is nonsense. Most in the latter category have always been completely English. DinDraithou (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I would Support the move to Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland but it should be accompanied by major additions to the lead that define what is included and is not included. It should also "See also" to the Peerage of Ireland article. That article should also make it clear that it generally excludes articles from Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility. Indeed the title of the article might need to change to reflect this exclusion. Both articles could then direct to a higher category e.g Category:Irish nobility. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion on the talk article's talk page. --RA (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Simon Byrne 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why there isn't a Republic of Ireland Wikiproject unless i've somehow managed to gloss over it all these years?

Why do i think one is relevant? Each country has its own Wikiproject, even Northern Ireland. So why should the Republic not have one specific for it? Using this one as its proxy feels to me like a way of saying that issues relating to the Republic relate to the island as a whole.

This project should technically just revolve around the geography of the island, topics from pre-Partition Ireland and modern cross-border politics and issues.

Any thoughts and opinions on this? No doubt a few editors will complain simply because it would probably have to use the term "Republic of". Mabuska ^(talk) 13:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough bodies to justify it. It's because Irish Wikipedians of all hues are so scarce that Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board redirect here. I also don't think there is enough of a difference between Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from the point of view of many encyclopedia articles to justify it in practical terms. And even on items as ostensibly solely ROI-relatd as the local authority areas (or former local authority area) editors from both sides of the border have a strong interest :-)

The converse, however, does not hold true, IMHO. For many practical reasons a distinct WikiProject Northern Ireland is valuable.

I think the practical benefit of a WikiProject trumps logic like "every country has a Wikiproject so why don't we" and I don't think we should divide out energies.

Just my 2¢ to your two-pence. --RA (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

By all means start one (WikiProject:ROI). GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We could just merge all the different wikiprojects into a single British Isles one ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not advisable. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy or guideline that requires each country to have its own project. The Ireland WikiProject covers the whole island for all periods which means that all pre-1922 related articles are included in the project. Should such articles be associated with some new sub-project of the UK and what should happen to people whose lives transitioned the partition? Way too difficult to deal with when the single island based project solves all such likely issues. Besides which the WPNI has rather low activity and few members, so relying on that project looks like an overambitious aspiration. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a need for the Belfast Wikiproject? Its just an idea to condense Republic of Ireland matters into one project where they can be solely concentrated on. We could just change this project to revolve around the RoI and use the Wikiproject Ireland Collaboration for the island - its got the right sounding name lol ;-) Mabuska ^(talk) 10:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If somebody wants to start up a WikiProject for the Republic of Ireland? go right ahead. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Followed by the 5th French Republic and the Parliamentary democracy and Constitutional monarchy of Denmark wikiprojects . Not need to include the description of the state in the projects name 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know... France isn't a state that covers five-sixths of the island of France... and Denmark isn't a state that covers five-sixths of the island of Denmark. The comparison doesn't work. ~Asarlaí 14:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was being pedantic ,the phrase ROI annoys me . Never mind ,carry on Gnevin (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well blame the government of the Republic of Ireland for passing an act stating that as its official description. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the government that adopted it. It's in the constitution. So it was adopted by the people. Fmph (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe, ROI in french is 'King'. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has been around since 2004 but with regular additions it is virtually only edited by anonIPs and has no references. It could well be improved by someone with knowledge and references. Can anyone take this on? ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Kmgm23 has been moving several place articles from their common English name to the Irish name without any discussion; apparently all are County Meath related such as Mullingar. Would someone look at his contribution history and revert those that are inappropriate. We are the English wiki not the ga wiki where those names are proper. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Some of those are quite obviously not common e.g. the moving Mullingar to An Muileann gCearr and changing the lead.

On a similar note, I've noticed:

(a) the position of the Irish-language name and the English-language name being swapped in the introduction to article and the English-langauge name being removed altogether from info boxes (example).

(b) the common, but not official, spelling of English-language place names being replaced in info boxes with uncommon, but official, spellings (Example).

The point of (a) is presumably to emphasise the official name for Gaeltacht places. The point of (b) is presumable to show only official names in info boxes. The edit can be seen here with the summary "official name". Personally, I'm OK/in support of (a) to a certain extent. (I'm uneasy about removing common English-language names from the info boxes). I'm uncertain about (b).

However, since the last concensus I was aware of around (a) was to give the English-language as the primary name if that was more common (and since it is arguably at odds with the MOS), I'd like to bring it up here and get views. Should we amend the MOS? Is (a) (or similar) the new consensus?

How to others feel about (b)? --RA (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted, or part reverted, all of those edits by Kmgm23. They didn't adhere to the MOS on use of the Irish language or Wikipedia:Common name. The other ones above are more debatable on what approach we should have. --RA (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless the editor can prove that they meet the criteria of the IMOS his edits should be reverted. I also agree with Ww2censor - this is the English-language Wiki, Irish names for all articles belong to the Gaelic-language Wiki. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(a) and (b) above are not so clean cut. They are a grey area and don't concern the location of articles - but of the content of articles.

The first question is with regard to Gaeltacht places. There is officially no such place as Aughleam, for example, in any language. Officially the only name, in English or Irish, is Eachléim. The English-language name certainly exists, and is common, but for Gaeltacht places should the Irish-langauge (and only official name) receive precedence in the lead (i.e. come first). Regardless of the answer to this, nobody has moved Aughleam to Eachléim.

The second question is about info boxes: what name(s) should appear in info boxes? Only official names? Or only common names? Or both? In some cases the official name can be at variance to the common name (as in Aughleam) or can be spelt slightly differently (as in Carrigtwohill). --RA (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the commonest name should be used for the article titles (per IMOS), but for Gaeltacht places the Irish name should come first in the lead. The anglicised names (many Gaeltacht places have more than one) should be given afterward, using Template:Gaeltacht place name. I'd prefer if infoboxes used only the official names, but I've no strong feelings on it. However, the Irish name should at least be bolded in infoboxes for Gaeltacht places. ~Asarlaí 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Intriguing to this novice that there is a Russian version of the article (see here), but not an Irish language version.86.42.196.211 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose that these sub-categories be deleted. There is a sub-category for nearly every seaward county. Most have only 1 page entry. They take sub-classification to ridiculous levels. There's barely enough to justify even 1 national category. But I'd retain the national one Category:Peninsulas of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I to take it that silence implies consent to proceed with the deletion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have lodged a formal proposal to delete in the category deletion log page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose that these sub-categories be deleted. There is a sub-category for many seaward county. Most have only 1 page entry. They take sub-classification to ridiculous levels. There's barely enough to justify even 1 national category. But I'd retain the national one Category:Bay of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I to take it that silence implies consent to proceed with the deletion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have lodged a formal proposal to delete in the category deletion log page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose that these sub-categories be deleted. There is a sub-category for nearly every seaward county. Most have only 1 page entry. They take sub-classification to ridiculous levels. There's barely enough to justify even 1 national category. But I'd retain the national one Category:Headlands of the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The same is true for the Category:Headlands of Northern Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I to take it that silence implies consent to proceed with the deletion? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have lodged a formal proposal to delete in the category deletion log page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be convenient to link to your proposals. I eventually found them, if anyone is interested:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 6#Category:Headlands of County XXX.
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 9#Category:Peninsulas of County XXX.
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 9#Category:Bays of County XXX.

jnestorius^(talk) 19:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to diffuse Category:Members of the Council of State of Ireland into subcategories, but there are difficulties. Comments appreciated at Category talk:Members of the Council of State of Ireland#Subcategories?. jnestorius^(talk) 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Propose to re-name Category:Iarnród Éireann stations to Category:Iarnród Éireann stations in the Republic of Ireland by county.

Proposer's rationale. For consistency with other geographic and infrastruture categories. For example, Category:Buildings and structures in the Republic of Ireland by county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Not needed. Iarnród Éireann does not operate outside of the Republic of Ireland. It does operate jointly with Northern Ireland Railways, the Enterprise train service between Dublin and Belfast but does not operate any of the train satations in NI, so this proposed renaming is totally superfluous. Building and structures exist everywhere so need disambiguating, Iarnród Éireann does not. Don't unnecessarily complicate category names and don't disambiguate that which does not need disambiguating! Snappy (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with previous, I don't think this amount of detail in a category is needed. Due to steps taken by Todd Andrews there aren't that many stations in the country anyway (compared to most other European countries, for example). Hohenloh ⁺ 02:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Revised re-naming proposal. What about Category:Iarnród Éireann stations by county which would indicate that it just contains a bunch of child cats, as opposed to a list of all stations in the Roi (which it does not contain)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No objection to this. Btw, you created Iarnród Éireann stations in South Tipperary and Iarnród Éireann stations in North Tipperary County, could you standardise on appending County or leaving it out, otherwise the results are just sloppy looking. Snappy (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My preference is to put the word "county" after the name of the modern administrative county, per discussion at 1 above. I'll request a re-name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ireland Dark Age Propose to re-name this article to "History of Ireland (100BC - 300AD)". This would be consistent with the convention of the other articles in the Category:History of Ireland by period. Would then be the link with the Prehistory of Ireland article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Irish Dark Age? Fergananim (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're entering another dark age now! Hohenloh ⁺ 04:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See talk page for agreed soltion. This case may now be closed. 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-name from Category:Religious sees in Ireland to Category:Dioceses in Ireland.

• Proposer's rationale. There is little difference between the two terms - they are, practically speaking, homonyms. Moreover, the 2 main sub-categories containthe word "dioceses". Their parent category is Category:Dioceses in Europe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What's a homonym? Is it some of kind homosexual? We don't want their kind around here. I oppose this, whatever it is. What a Religious sea? Is it like the Irish sea but holier? It sounds nice, can you swim in it? Snappy (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the proposer is all at sea! Homonyms are words which have the same spelling and pronunciation as each other but different meanings. I suggest that "synonyms" is what is meant here. Hohenloh ⁺ 01:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to inject a little humour into your gloomy day. If you're more comfortable with synonym, I can go along with that. Merriam-Webster lists 3 definitions of "homonyn": 1. one of two or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning 2. namesake and 3. a taxonomic designation rejected as invalid because the identical term has been used to designate another group of the same rank. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homonym?show=0&t=1290605932 Snappy provides an example of the first kind (see / sea). My point was about the third kind (see / diocese). Neither of you gentlemen mentioned the obvious excruciating pun (Holy See - geddit ?). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on Solaire's talk page has proposed to create a History task force of this WikiProject. There have been a few posts/discussions at Talk:History of Ireland that used that page as a central point for discussion on history related matters. However, the appropriateness of using an article talk page for wider discussion was (quite reasonably) questioned. The proposal is to create a task force rather than a wholly new WikiProject so as to not divide energies or to split this WikiProject.

What are views of others on this? --RA (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that the interest for this isn't exactly overwhelming, but on the assumption that the silence might be caused by people not noticing RA's notice due to other stuff I'm writing this as a poke of sorts... I think this might be useful, but we would need a critical mass of at least five users I think, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Mabuska expressed an interest, and the discussion was on my talk page, so by your reckoning we only need one more interested party to reach critical mass. I wouldn't expect this to explode into life immediately upon creation, it's more that we would have a forum to discuss any issue that arises on an article talk page, but is bigger than that one article. Scolaire (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Essentially i see it as Scolaire stated - a forum to discuss issues. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour; I tend to add particular things to articles but - a) am too lazy and b) can't face an edit war, to rewrite general pages like History of Ireland (1691–1801).Red Hurley (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Folks, not sure if this is the correct place to post as I am new to Wikipedia. Anyway, I wanted to expand on the ((Clonbanin Ambush)) article. I recently bought a house on the site of the ambush and, because of that, I have done quite a bit of research on it. Is it ok to just work away at it, or should I get permission from somewhere? I'm not au fait with the etiquette here :) Cathaloc (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, as we discussed at the last meet-up in Dun Laoghaire hosted by Clem, which was very interesting and a great opportunity to meet fellow-Wikipedians, I'd like to invite all interested to meet up in Dublin on Friday 3 December. The proposed venue is in South Richmond St., Dublin, (about 20 mins. walk from the city centre and next to the Luas green line), to start about 7:00 pm. Again, as we discussed, I've arranged that all attending the meet-up will obtain free entrance to a fund-raising concert for Haiti in a nearby venue which will start later that evening, and if wanted a cut-price meal at any of the local restaurants and a free drink or two. I'll supply further details if we can find enough people to come along, and will extend this invitation to Wikipedians from other countries who may be interested in coming along. Hohenloh ⁺ 02:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice with further details posted at Wikipedia:Meetup/Ireland. Hohenloh ⁺ 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great, Hohenloh. Count me in again. --RA (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then, me 2! Fergananim (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea; I can't make it. I've been away for a month and soon off again.Red Hurley (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite the inclement weather conditions we'll go ahead with the meet-up (and the music), as planned. The LUAS is running and taxis are always available in Richmond St. Hohenloh ⁺ 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi; a discussion on renaming and/or subdividing Category:Gaelic games by county is at Category talk:Gaelic games by county#Categorisation. jnestorius^(talk) 10:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale this category is empty. The contents have been moved to the appropriate categories in Category:Geography of North Tipperary County and Category:Geography of South Tipperary County. The category is now redundant. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No it is not redundant. It is needed as a container category for the South + North Tipperary category, and for all the sub-cats which do not have equivalents in the South + North Tipperary categories.

Unfortunately, many of those subcats such as Category:Media in County Tipperary , Category:Secondary schools in County Tipperary were not divided into North and South Tipp equivalents; they were simply emptied, and placed in much more general categories relating to North or South Tipp.

This huge exercise had the effect of removing large numbers of articles relating to County Tipperary from important parts of the category tree. For example, after Laurel's spree, a reader would have gone to Category:Secondary schools in the Republic of Ireland and found no Tipperary schools in there. Same for Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland: there was no longer any Tipperary subcat of Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland.

I have just spent several hours rebuilding Category:County Tipperary, and Category:Geography of County Tipperary and the rest of the category. It had been painstakingly built over many years by lots of editors, and it is disgraceful that it was simply removed without consensus, by one editor. Next time an editor wants to delete categories, use WP:CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is redundant. It is not needed as a container category for the South + North Tipperary category. They are self contained. One might as well say that Carlow-Kilkenny needs a container cacategory. This would be absurd as no such county of Carlow-Kilkenny exists, even though it has bytimes existed as a constituency. Similarly, no such county of Tipperary exists even though it has bytimes existed as a constituency. The traditional county was legally abolished.

Sub-cats which do not have equivalents in the South + North Tipperary categories. Too true. There is no law that says that every county category must have the same number and type of categories. How many articles would appear in the category of "Headlands of County Laois" or "Peninsulas of County Ofaly"? Very few I would imagine. Where few or indeed no articles exist, there is no point in creating a category for them. It is suffucient that they appear in their logical parent. For example the 7 (count them, a whole 7 ) articles in the cat "Education in South Tiperary" sit quite happily there as opposed to "Secondary Schools in South Tiperary".

Where categories do not have equivalents, in many cases the best thing to do is for them to be simply emptied, and placed in much more general categories relating to North or South Tipp. Category creation for the sake of category creation in the case of North or South Tipp would be wrong.

This huge exercise of removing large numbers of articles relating to County Tipperary from the category tree was entirely necessary. One does not expect thanks for it but would does not expect wholesale reversion without discussion. that's just rude.

In the event of sufficient articles being present to justify the creation of the Category:Secondary schools in North Tipperary County, I would see no difficulty in that category being attached to Category:Secondary schools in the Republic of Ireland. Same for Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Rivers of the Republic of Ireland.

I have spent several hours building the categories of North Tipperary and South Tipperary. It had been painstakingly built over many months by me, and it is disgraceful that they were simply depopulated without consensus, by one editor. Next time an editor wants to depopulate categories, use WP:CFD. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you checked, you would see that I have not depopulated any' of the North Tipperary and South Tipperary counties. What I have done is to add them to the appropriate County Tipperary parent categs, and to restore County Tipperary categories for the article which you removed entirely from relevant parts of the category tree, such as rivers, media and secondary schools.

You may be right that there are not enough articles to justify the creation of the Category:Secondary schools in North Tipperary County, though the convention is that when a category is part of an established series, it is acceptable for some of the categories in that series to be sparsely-populated. However, what you are completely wrong to have done is to depopulate the broader categories. You could -- and should -- have added a school to Category:Education in South Tipperary County without removing it from Category:Secondary schools in County Tipperary.

I have also done the same with Category:County Dublin, where you had engaged in massive destruction of the category tree. You emptied categories out-of-process, removed dozens of schools from secondary school categories, rugby clubs from rugby club categories, and so on.

This all arises from your fixation with the idea that because County Tipperary and County Dublin are no longer ad administrative counties, then have no continued existence a geographical entities. I see no consensus for that view, and I suggest that if you want to say "no such county of Tipperary exist" to any of the fine GAA players from that county, then you better be able to run like as fast a rocket. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The entity GAA County exists. The entity Tipperary GAA also exists. What do the doings of private clubs have to do with affairs of state? By the way, London GAA is a tier 3 club. Is it also an Irish county? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Counties Tipperary and Dublin exist in common usage, in folk memory, in historical events and historical people. I have no issue with these traditional counties having categories pertaining to such subjects. It would be improper to attribute their historical doings to present boundaries. However, in all other matters, it is possible to attribute entites to their modern administrative successors. This is particularly true of entities rooted in geography; a church is in a defined place, a school is in a defined place, a building or structure is in a defined place, a hotel is in a defined place, a river is in a defined place etc. There is no impediment to placing these entities into the modern cat. It follows logicaly therefore, that they should not go into the traditional cat. You may call it a fixation, I'd call it logic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I accept the correction about depopulation. I would still characterise what you have done though as non-consensual and disruptive behaviour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Laurel, quit trying to invert reality. I have restored categories which you depopulated without going through the process of seeking consensus at WP:CFD. If you want to describe my undoing of your unilateral, out-of-process destruction as "non-consensual and disruptive", then you entirely misunderstand how consensus works: the onus was on you to seek consensus for dismantling these status quo, not for others to seek consensus in restoring it. You were repeatedly warned (on your talk page) by other editors not to do this, but you persisted despite the objections.

As to the substance, it's simple: I have no objection to using the new adminsitrative counties as a basis for geographical categorisation. What I do object to is the removal of categories based on the traditional counties:

1. . That was entirely un-necessary. Your preferred categorisation scheme works just fine by having the new adminsistrative counties as sub-cats of the traditional counties, which is the situation now that I have undone your out-of-process depopulations
2. The way you did it was systematically destructive, because you removed a lot of detail from the category tree. I disagree with your view that it is always wrong to create small categories, because the long-standing consensus is that they are are fine if part of a well-populated series (se WP:OC#SMALL). However, even if we agreed that it was not appropriate to have, for example, Category:Secondary schools in North Tipperary County, there was no need to depopulate Category:Secondary schools in County Tipperary. You could simply have added the schools to Category:Education in South Tipperary; but instead you chose to remove them from any categorisation as secondary schools. And you did the same thing across County Tipp and County Dublin to schools, FE colleges, rugby clubs, churches, sports venues, mountains and hills, and many other topics: hundreds of articles were stripped of category details, without following the proper process at WP:CFD.

All this arises from your fixation on the bizarre idea that a county ceases to exist when it when it ceases to be an administrative unit: that's plain wrong. As the head articles County Tipperary and County Dublin make clear, the counties are still used for many purposes, even though they are no longer units of local government. They are well-known, widely accepted geographic entities, with boundaries which are well-known and have been stable for over a century, and the worst that can happen from using them as the basis of geographical categories is that some articles need to be dispersed to sub-cats. That's no problem; it happens all the time, and it's actually a practical benefit, because when ad editor is not sure which of the new smaller counties applies they can instead use the parent categ for the traditional county, and leave someone else to sub-categorise

Your obesssion with the current administrative status is misplaced, because these categories are not legal documents. They are navigational devices for organising articles on a geographical basis, and for that to work the entities need to be stable, widely-used, have clear boundaries, and not overlap other entities. The traditional counties do just that.

One good example of this is in Northern Ireland, where the traditional counties continue to be used as the basis of geographical categories, decades after they ceased to be local govt units. See for example Category:County Down and its subcats.

Another example is the use by the Irish government of former administrative units. Take a look at the Schedue to the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009, which defines the constituencies used for elections to Dáil Éireann. As you'll see, it relies on "former Rural districts", which were abolished in the 1930s. That works perfectly, because the former legal districts remain defined places. If you disagree, you are of course welcme to go the Supreme Court and argue that every Dáil election since the abolition of the rural districts has been invalid, because the constituencies have not had defined boundaries. Please do let us all know how you get on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Airports in Republic of Ireland has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that oireachtas-debates.gov.ie is now discontinued in favour of debates.oireachtas.ie. The latter seems to be better:

• having anchors at each paragraph so you can link directly to e.g. "Fianna Fáil is a slightly constitutional party". Annoyingly there are no anchors to column numbers.
• index of bills per year e.g. 1948 shows all stages at a glance, with links to the relevant sections. This isn't perfect:
  • most obviously, where a bill's passage spans multiple years
  • other glitches, e.g. "The Republic of Ireland Bill, 1948" is sorted under T not R, and separate from "The Republic of Ireland Bill (Resumed)".

The official site's Committee Reports section http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=78&m=k only has those since 2002. Older ones are currently available at http://193.178.2.84/test/R/index.html. Presumably they will be migrated to a permanent URL soon. Some of the older debates seem to have already been migrated to http://debates.oireachtas.ie/committees/, but there are more at http://193.178.2.84/test/R/en.toc.com.chrono.html. jnestorius^(talk) 12:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:EPON, "The question arises as to whether eponymous categories should be placed in (made subcategories of) the categories which their corresponding articles belong to. Logically they usually should not (for example, France belongs to Category:European countries, but Category:France does not constitute a subset of European countries).".

I would interpret this to mean that the article South Dublin belongs to the Category:Counties of the Republic of Ireland, but Category:South Dublin County does not constitute a subset of Irish counties. Is this correct? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to ask the same question in two places: per WP:MULTI, that just fragments a discussion. I already answered this in response to your identical post at Talk:South Dublin:

No, it isn't. WP:EPON makes that purist point then says by convention, many categories do contain their articles' eponymous categories as subcategories, even though they are not "true" subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My goodness, this is an article of epic proportions. Too epic, really. It is huge (the biggest page on WP), unwieldy and for some users will probably never load. As someone on the discussion page pointed out, most of the townlands are not at all notable (some are just 1 acre!). As another said, all important townlands are at the relevant category. I believe we need to seriously trim down this page or delete it entirely. Thoughts? Thanks. —Half Price 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The page is big because Cork is Ireland's biggest county. I'm against deletion, but I wouldn't oppose splitting the page if there was support for it. There are well-written lists of townlands for every county (see List of places in Ireland). ~Asarlaí 21:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are pretty big too. WP:SPLIT says that pages over 100k should almost certainly be split. WP:SIZE says "with some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all... If possible, split the content into logically separate articles. If necessary, split the article arbitrarily." Maybe the latter is what is needed. Thanks. —Half Price 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Due to the vast amount i think it would be better to split them into townlands per barony or civil parish. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to help if I was given clear instructions. Townlands of Ireland are not my speciality though, oddly enough! —Half Price 21:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps List of townlands of County Cork, A–E etc.? —Half Price 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know what Irish calendar is about. I'm tempted to AFD. Gnevin (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be just a vehicle to put Gaelic language names alongside English language names. The astronomical bits are fluff. The pagan origins stuff is accurate and a preferable explanation. I'd have no strong objections to the article, but the name is probably misleading - there is no calendar per se. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is also largely OR. The intro, where it says the calendar "does not observe the astronomical seasons...or the meteorological seasons...Rather, it centres the seasons around the solstices and equinoxes..." is off the top of someone's head, as well as being impossible to understand unless you work it all out first. If you AfD it, I will vote in favour of deletion. Scolaire (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire. Mooretwin (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish calendar. Listed for afd. . Gnevin (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/11#Irish_provincial_geo-stub_templates.2Fcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin to Category:Parliamentary constituencies in County Dublin

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_27#Category:Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-name Category:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland to Category:Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland

• Rationale To complement the existing category of Category:Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland. The other main denominations (RC & CoI) have this split by state. The overall parent category is Category:Churches in Ireland. Only 1 article at present but has potential to grow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Very bad idea, as would be evident if you had studied the existing structure of such categories: "Foo in Ireland" has subcats "Foo in Northern Ireland" and "Foo in the Republic of Ireland".

So create a new Category:Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland, and populate it appropriately. Its parent categs should be Category:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland and Category:Churches in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per BHG. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as the country is named Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose What's wrong with Ireland? Adding Republic will just cause controversy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per BHG - Alison ^❤ 16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per BHG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with BHG's alternate proposal on creating a new category for RoI Presbyterian churches and have it as a sub-category of Presbyterian Churches in Ireland and Churches in the Republic of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. I have created Category:Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The tree which can now be seen at Category:Presbyterian_Churches_in_Ireland makes sense. Though BHG, does the new Republic of Ireland category require the Europe category added to it? Only asking as the parent Presbyterian Churches in Ireland category page already has this tag. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question, Mabuska, and I'm not sure of the answer. You're right that the all-Ireland-categ is in Category:Presbyterian churches in Europe, and that we wouldn't therefore usually add a subcat to the same place. The reason I put it in was simply sloth: I basically copied the NI categ, which included it, and thought I'd do the same for both. I think that the answer to whether it really belongs there probably depends on whether one views Category:Presbyterian churches in Europe as a category of European regions (in which case the all-Ireland categ is enough and RoI doesn't belong there), or as a category of churches-by-nation (in which case inclusion or exclusion depends on ones view of which or both of Ireland or RoI is a nation).

I thought that in general including them both was likely to cause the last offence, so I went with that one. I'm quite happy to go with the flow if there is a consensus for a different approach ... but since this issue arises with so many categories, may I suggest that we start a separate discussion on how to handle it for all such categs? There are many senstivities here, and I think the best chance of a stable solution will be found by adopting a consistent approach of whatever shape most respects the difft political perspectives on the island. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of 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) 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#South_Dublin to drop the suffix "County". For example Category:South Dublin County → Category:South Dublin.

Your comments are welcome at the CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was that the categories were renamed to use the format "South Dublin (county)", i.e the official name with an added disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Old Moore's Almanac expanded with some 2011 predictions.Red Hurley (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As BHG suggested, a seperate discussion of the category tree in general use.

I think following a geographic/geo-political model would make sense, with each sub-category being categorised with its parent as going to the parent category will show its fellow children and its own parent. For example the following tree:

Category Foo in world

• Category Foo in Europe

• Cateory Foo in Ireland

• Category Foo in Northern Ireland

• Category Foo in County Foo

• Category Foo in Republic of Ireland

• Category Foo in County Foo

Each category would be tagged with its direct parent and display a list of its articles and direct children categories. So for example "Category Foo in Ireland" would be tagged with "Category Foo in Europe" and any other relevant category tags from other related topics, and it would display links to "Category Foo in NI" and "Category Foo in RoI".

I think this model would work good and whilst i don't see any controversy with it, i could be wrong. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to that if everyone else is happy.

Similarly, I have no objections to "Foo in Europe" containing all three main Irish categories: "Foo in Ireland", "Foo in Northern Ireland", and "Foo in Republic of Ireland"

My concern is that since the other sub-categories of "Foo in Europe" are nation-states, some editors may feel that categories for the nation-state of Republic of Ireland should be there too, while others may feel that the unqualified term Ireland should not be excluded from the category.

Whatever the decision, please let's try for as wide a consensus as possible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm i do see the problem you point out BHG. Including all three in "Category Foo in Europe" doesn't sound too bad, with maybe having the NI and RoI also category tagged as part of the Ireland one. Though "Category Foo in Europe" doesn't have to simply be about modern nation-states or geo-political entities. It could potentially also include historical states or other categories such as "Category Foo in the Holy Roman Empire", "Category Foo in Iberia" or "Category Foo in Scandinavia" etc. along with "Category Foo in Spain" and "Category Foo in Norway" etc. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Cathedrals in Ireland

I have another idea on how to sort the problem out of this category being listed under Category:Cathedrals by country when it contains two seperate countries as sub-cats - we could simply add a paragraph into the main Ireland category stating that it refers to when the whole island of Ireland was a country, and that since 1921 there are now two countries on the island (RoI and UK [NI]). Thus it could be used as a historical country category, and provide the reader with the sub-cats for cathedrals in the two component parts of the island (Ireland [also known as RoI] and NI) today. As all of the cathedrals i think were built when the whole island was still a country it could make sense, with us showing the present jurisdictions that they belong to now. Any thoughts??? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that would be even more confusing. The simplest thing to do would be to add a short note saying that Category:Cathedrals in Ireland refers to cathedrals on the entire island of Ireland. Having the 2 sub-cats as the only immediate children will tell the other half of the story. Fmph (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems to hinge on Mabuska's insistence that Ireland is not a country, and applying that view without regard to the historical and political realities. Mabuska seems to be confusing the concept of "country" with that of "nation state"; they are not quite the same. The reality is more complex, and does not fit into a neat single logic. For over a decade now it has been a fundamental principle of government of both N.Irl and the Republic that there are two equally valid ways of looking at this:

a) Ireland is a historical country, but ceased to be a nation-state at the Act of Union, and when it was later partitioned one part became a nation-state again

b) Ireland is and remains a country, but at the moment the two parts are governed separately

Trying to choose between those two views creates a set of problems which are exercising Mabuska ... but there is no need to choose between them. The only reason offered for doing so is the mistaken insistence that Ireland is not a country; I am sure that it is well-intentioned, but since it reflects only one of two equally-valid views of the situation, it has an NPOV effect.

The perceived problem of both 32-county Ireland and the Republic of Ireland appearing in a "foo by county" category is only a problem is we try to apply a single rigid definition to country. There is no need to do that, and we can accommodate the whole thing simply by accepting the constitutional reality that the status of Ireland requires a slightly different approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did i insist that "Ireland" is not a country BHG? I openly stated that Ireland is a country somewhere on this talk page, however in the context and shape of that category, it can't be categorised as a country category whilst it contains two seperate country sub-cats. It must be given context for the reader to understand. I suggested we could add an intro into that category to state that the whole island was once a country that now consists of those two countries, and we can state that the name "Ireland" is the official name of one of those countries. That would help put it into some form of context instead of just simply categorising Cathedrals in Ireland as a country whilst having it contain two seperate country sub-cats without any explaination whatsoever.

A suggestion of just getting rid of the country sub-cats has been put forward however its just as troublesome as that ignores the fact that there are two seperate countries in the island of Ireland, and also would result in England, Wales, and Scotland having their own cathedral sub-cats as part of the UK category whilst depriving NI its right to also have one. Cathedrals in NI, might also by extension be naturally a child of Cathedrals in Ireland, but its also a child of Cathedrals in the UK, so it should exist.

We could however merge the Republic of Ireland sub-cat with the parent Ireland cat and keep the NI sub-cat and give an explaination that since 1921, Ireland was split in two and that some cathedrals now reside in NI. That would allow the Cathedrals in Ireland category to keep its country tag but also explain NI's inclusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In your opening post in this section you said "when the whole island was still a country". That statement makes sense only it is no longer "still a country".

OK, your position is slightly more nuanced than I understood: you seem to be saying that Ireland is a country but cannot be categorised as a country. That's a tail-wagging the-dog situation; we should ensure that the categorisation system fits reality, rather than trying to adjust reality to fit the category structure.

As to merging the Republic of Ireland sub-cat with the parent Ireland category, I don't think you have properly considered the effects of that idea. If you do that, then there will be no cathedrals in the sub-cats of Category:Republic of Ireland, which would be daft.

There is a really simple solution to all this:

1. keep every "Foo in Ireland" category
2. subcat them with "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" and "Foo in Northern Ireland", unless they relate to the period before partition (e.g. Category:Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801))
3. Make "Foo in Northern Ireland" a subcat of both "Foo in Ireland" and "Foo in the United Kingdom"
4. make both "Foo in Ireland" and "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" direct sub-cats of "Foo by country"

That is the usual practice so far, and it works. Every other proposal you have suggested creates some impediment to navigation, and for what? The only reason you offer for all the proposed disruption the don't put-a-category-and-its-subcat in the same category. That's a fine principle, but in this case breaking it is by far the least-worst means of ensuring that category navigational trees are not broken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete Category:Anglican cathedrals in Ireland as the categories Category:Anglican cathedrals in Northern Ireland and Category:Anglican cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland exist. This keeps all the church related categories in the two jurisdictions in their own categories. It will then be possible to view the articles on an all island basis in the Category:Churches in Ireland whose scope is both jurisdictions, with their attendant sub-categories. This latter category would however probably only contain two child categories (one each for RoI and NI). It would just be double counting of the same things to retain the current category.

Delete Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland as the categories Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Northern Ireland and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland exist. This keeps all the church related categories in the two jurisdictions in their own categories. It will then be possible to view the articles on an all island basis in the Category:Churches in Ireland whose scope is both jurisdictions, with their attendant sub-categories. This latter category would however probably only contain two child categories (one each for RoI and NI). It would just be double counting of the same things to retain the current category.

Delete Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches as the categories Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches and Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches exist. This keeps all the church related categories in the two jurisdictions in their own categories. It will then be possible to view the articles on an all island basis in the Category:Churches in Ireland whose scope is both jurisdictions, with their attendant sub-categories. This latter category would however probably only contain two child categories (one each for RoI and NI). It would just be double counting of the same things to retain the current category. Laurel Lodged

Delete Category:Cathedrals in Ireland as the categories Category:Cathedrals in Northern Ireland and Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland exist. This keeps all the church related categories in the two jurisdictions in their own categories. It will then be possible to view the articles on an all island basis in the Category:Churches in Ireland whose scope is both jurisdictions, with their attendant sub-categories. This latter category would however probably only contain two child categories (one each for RoI and NI). It would just be double counting of the same things to retain the current category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop this, Laurel.

There is a consistent pattern of having Category:Foo in Ireland with subcats Category:Foo in Northern Ireland and Category:Foo in the Republic of Ireland. The all-Ireland Category:Foo in Ireland functions as a container category, and does not in any way impede the navigation you desire, because it offers two paths -- or rather it did not until you started screwing up the parenting of these categories, as noted at User_talk:Laurel_Lodged#Church_categories.

Here's how it works with RC cathedrals

Category:Cathedrals in Ireland → Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland → Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland

Category:Cathedrals in Ireland → Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland → Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland

There is no double-counting involved and no duplication. We have a category structure which is consistent across a huge range of topics: it can be navigated both on a geographical basis (Northern Ireland or Republic) or on a topic basis. I have no idea why you are so keen to dismantle it, other than that you fail to understand it .... but whatever the actual reason, your misguided tinkering with categories has been disruptive for far too long. Please stop, now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one way it could work. It involves the bottom category being listed twice. There is no need for a Category:Cathedrals in Ireland category once you have a Category:Churches in Ireland category. So the folowing patentage would also work. And more elegantly IMHO.

Category:Churches in Ireland → Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland → Category:Anglican cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland

Category:Churches in Ireland → Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland → Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland

But I'll leave that to the group to adjudicate. The proposal is out there and I'm happy to abide by the group's collective wisdom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If we remove Category:Cathedrals in Ireland, then we have the same effect as removing any "Foo in Ireland" category: we break the navigational path down the "Foo in Ireland" tree (and also remove the possibility of all-Ireland categorisation of articles). The removal of any one link in the chain can be resolved by duplicate parenting, but then as each successive layer is removed the situation can be resolved only by a complicated and confusing massively-multiple parenting of the more specific layer below it.

In course of your chain, you move from a "foo in Ireland" category to a "foo in the Republic of Ireland" category. That's why there appears to be an extra step: it's because you are jumping to a more specific geographical category as well as a more specific religious one. You can only do that because a chain of similar Category:foo in Ireland exists above it.

You offer no particular reason to remove this particular "Foo In Ireland" category rather than all of them. Why not propose the removal of all of them? Why not delete Category:Churches in Ireland, and put everything there into Category:Churches in Northern Ireland and Category:Churches in the Republic of Ireland? And when we've done that, get rid of Category:Places of worship in Ireland and put its republic and northern Ireland sub-cats into Category:buildings and structures in Ireland and in Category:religion in Ireland?

You've taken this one example, but the thrust of what you are trying is essentially to delete Category:Ireland and leave us with Category:Northern Ireland and Category:Republic of Ireland

If you did that there'd be no "extra steps" involved in switching from a "Foo in Ireland" category to a "foo in the The Republic of Ireland" category, because there wouldn't be any "Foo in Ireland" categories to start from. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User BHG usually berates me for moving categories. Now, for a change, it seems like I'm being berated for not moving categories. There's no pleasing some people. But Rome wasn't built in a day: there's time for other work. Meanwhile May I correct the assumption that it is my intention to delete the Category:Ireland. Far from it. I note that almost all articles in that category contain the cats "Foo in NI" and "Foo in RoI". The cat Churches in Ireland would be no different if this proposal was implemented. But instead of having confusing parallel navigation paths, the user would be forced to choose one geographic path at a high point before the full panoply of subcats was open to him, no matter which geographic path was chosen. This simplifies the navigation greatly without sacrificing any info at the lower levels, nor indeed at the highest Ireland level. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. I have not "berated you for not moving categories". Try reading what you are replying to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no inherent problem with having category NI and RoI as children of an Ireland category as they both belong to the island of Ireland, which is how i see it. Yet there is a problem with what Laurel's brought to our attention. Look at Category:Cathedrals in Ireland - what category is it tagged as being part of? Yes Category:Cathedrals by country. This shouldn't be as Ireland containing both the RoI and NI is not a country - its an island. Such instances of this should be amended. If the Category:Cathedrals in Ireland was tagged as Category:Cathedrals in Europe, there wouldn't be a problem. There is also a good bit of tautology going on there. I'm going to try to amend this example. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just for everyone to make clear what i changed, i amended Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland to be tagged as Category:Cathedrals by country, and removed this tag from the Category:Cathedrals in Ireland page as it can't be stated as a country when it lists two countries part of two seperate sovereign states. Category:Cathedrals in Northern Ireland is already tagged in it under Category:Cathedrals in the United Kingdom so it doesn't need a similar country tag - which helps avoid controversy there. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, I am sure you have acted in good faith, but I think that what you have done there is greatly mistaken. Your assertion "Ireland is not a country" will be highly offensive to many people, and raises many of the issues which caused such bitter controversy over the naming of the articles. The 32-county island is not currently a nation-state, but your statement that it is not a country will be vigorously rejected by many nationalists and republicans. Whether or not any of those in discussion share either of those viewpoints, I think it is quite wrong to structure the category system to exclude that viewpoint.

I do not think that you should have made this change unilaterally, when you yourself have only just opened a much-need discussion on the subject in the section above this.

It is much better to discuss things in one place, so we should avoid discussing this here while the discussion above is underway. Please revert your edits to Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland pending a wider consensus on how to handle this for all such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns BHG, however for the reason i gave above its incorrect. The category as it was, was incorrect due to its content. The Category:Cathedrals in Ireland contained two children categories; Category:Cathedrals in Northern Ireland and Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland. In this style, the Ireland one is not being used as a country but as a geographical entity so it shouldn't be listed under the list of countries category. In this sense Ireland as a geographical entity is not a country. The way it was gives a false impression that NI and RoI are part of a country called Ireland.

If i am to revert it i will have to remove the NI category from it and merge the content of the RoI category with the Ireland one. As i said, i only removed the "Ireland" category from the "countries" one and added the "Republic" category to it to avoid giving that impression.

Ireland is a country i don't deny that so i don't mean to offend anybody but in the way it was being used it refers to the island and the island of Ireland is not a country.

This really is a troublesome matter lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right that it is a troublesome matter! That's why I am concerned that we proceed carefully, taking care to accommodate all the difft perspectives.

It's all very well to say that the all-Ireland category was not being used as a country, but that depends entirely on how we define a country ... and that question goes to the core of a long-standing disagreement. As above, you made the changes to this particular category while we were still discussing the wider principle above.

Please, whatever you think is the right outcome: please please please please revert your changes for now, and let's centralise in one place the discussion about how to handle this issue generally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though the reasons i've stated for the two changes i believe are correct and justifiable. It still leaves a problem of having an Ireland category stated as a country that includes the RoI and NI as sub-cats. We could state in the main Ireland category page that it refers to the island which was once a country and that it has since been partitioned into two - this would allow for the sub-cats to remain. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting ... but please please please please please please please please please can we keep the substantive discussion in one place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that the churches are organised on an all-Ireland basis, I can see no reason for keeping the RoI and NI sub-cats. A single Ireland category is the way to go. Fmph (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to conclude my involvement in this branch off, i have to say Fmph that that isn't a justifiable reason to remove the RoI and NI sub-categories completely. RoI and NI are or belong to different states, it is helpful for readers to be able to see automatically what cathedrals exist in NI and what ones exist in the RoI rather than just see the entire island and no sub-cats. The only problem with these ones brought to my attention by Laurel is the fact the main Ireland cat is being used as an island but treated as a country. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Can you justify your assertion that readers find it helpful to be able to see automatically which cathedrals exist in NI and which in RoI? What are the hit stats for those 3 cat pages? If what you say is true, I would expect there to be a greatly significant difference between each of the pages. Personally I doubt very much that WP readers in general are clamouring for the Irish cathedrals to be sub-catted like that. But you may have a different opinion. And how is the main Ireland cat being treated as a country? Surely that is easily solved by editing the cat page to show that it's not. More than one way to skin a cat. Fmph (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt many people even bother looking at the categories of most things anyways. I did edit the main Ireland page however i was asked to revert it as some people will find it troublesome so it'd be better to discuss it first rather than being just bold. Also can you justify deleting the NI sub-cat altogether when its also a sub-cat of Category:Cathedrals in the United Kingdom, and as Scotland, Wales, and England each have there own, Northern Ireland as the other part of the UK is fully justified in having its own. Readers may go to the main Ireland cat to find cathedrals for Ireland however if they are looking at UK cathedrals and want to see what ones are in NI a part of the UK then the sub-cat must exist. Removing it altogether in place of an all-Ireland one would be very problematic and troublesome - could you imagine the uproar if Category:Cathedrals in Ireland was tagged as being in Category:Cathedrals in the United Kingdom. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we follow Category:Mosques in Ireland?.Red Hurley (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

After all of the above, it is clear that that isn't the best idea. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that categories have been created for the new administrative counties, and some naming issues resolved at CFD, we have fairly consistent structure for categories relating to Dublin:

• Category:Foo in County Dublin covers the whole of the former County Dublin and the city of Dublin, but for most topics there will be sub-categories for the for the Tier-1 local government authorities in the area:

  Category:Foo in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown

  Category:Foo in Fingal

  Category:Foo in South Dublin

  Category:Foo in Dublin

• Where the sub-categories exist, the articles go there and Category:Foo in County Dublin should be empty (see for example Category:Buildings and structures in County Dublin)

The top-level category for the city is Category:Dublin, and its sub-categories are all called Category Foo in Dublin

This is entirely accurate, but unfortunately it is also somewhat ambiguous because in common usage, "Dublin" may be used to refer either to the city or to the wider Dublin area.

This sort of ambiguity also exists with other cities which share their name with a wider administrative area which has its own category structure. In article text, this is not a problem, because the usage can be explained ... but it does pose problems with categories, because categories are applied to an article without the editor seeing what the explanation in the category text says.

This is a deficiency in the software: even the brilliant and widely-used tool HotCat allows editors to choose categories from a list, but only identifies them by name. A HoTCat-user can see what's written in the introduction to a category until they have added it, unless they follow a few unfamiliar steps which allow them to load the category on a new page ... and that's a clumsy process which many editors will not bother with.

To help avoid this sort of good-faith miscategorisation, there has been a growing tendency at Categories for Discussion to address the problem by insisting that category names should be unambiguous. That means adding a disambiguator to the category names, even when the head article is not disambiguated.

The city is clearly the primary usage of the term "Dublin", and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the article on the city is correctly located at Dublin. However, IMRHO there is enough ambiguity to cause categorisation errors by editors who may not be aware of the distinction between Dublin city and the now-divided County Dublin.

So I'm minded to propose that Category:Dublin be renamed to Category:Dublin (city), and that it sub-categories should be renamed in the same way. Note that this does not in any way imply that the city is called "Dublin City": the used of brackets around "(city)" indicates that it is a disambiguator, an artifact added by wikipedia to distinguish it from things of a similar name.

Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a sensible suggestion. Maybe just go ahead and propose it at CFD? Snappy (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Snappy. I think I'll give it a week to see if there are any comments here, because some recent renaming proposals have attracted a bit of drama at CFD, and I think it'd be best to give it at least 7 days here so that anyone who has concerns can discuss them here. If someone has a great reason not to do this, it'd be better to hear it here rather than wasting time at CFD, and is someone needs clarification that may be a pointer to something to include in the CFD nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I advocated a similar change of CfD on Oct 39th

which was unsuccessful.

The reasons for the opposition were

1. "The category for the city is Category:Dublin. The only one that adds "city" does it through a disambiguator"
2. "This would not be the only case where categories had a disambiguator and the main article did not."
3. "per GO. It is far more likely that non-Irish people will think "Dublin City" is somewhere completely different from Dublin"
4. "per standard usage in category space and article space of Category:Dublin and Dublin. No reason for just this one to be different"

Similarly, a proposal renaming Category:Public houses in Dublin City to Category:Public houses in Dublin was carried - see Nov 8th where the rationale was "Suggest renaming these to match main article Dublin and parent categories Category:Dublin and Category:Buildings and structures in Dublin."

I contributed to that debate as follows: "Comment. The cats as currently named are a model of consitency and logic. It is their sisters and parents that are inconsistent and illogical. It would be foolish indeed to rename the correct cats to a known incorrect cat so that all could then be renamed to the original pattern at some future date. This folly must not be allowed to propogate.". To this, the proposer replied "Then nominate Category:Dublin and all its subcategories for renaming to see if others agree with you. I can't make it any more clear. But don't create new categories based on a new naming scheme that you feel is superior before your preferred scheme has been adopted.". Are you rising to the challenge of that editor? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Drama, as I feared. :( Laurel, it's a real pity that you comment at length rather than reading what you are replying to.

Naming the categories "Dublin City" would be wrong, because the city is known as "Dublin", not "Dublin City". This proposal is to add a disambiguator.

See the last sentence of my opening post: "Note that this does not in any way imply that the city is called "Dublin City": the used of brackets around "(city)" indicates that it is a disambiguator, an artifact added by wikipedia to distinguish it from things of a similar name."

You could have saved a lot of electrons if you read that before posting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now listed Category:Dublin and its sub-categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 4#Dublin. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• This has been renamed to the "Dublin (city)" format. However, this has almost certainly moved some articles which are "outside" the city into categories that specify city-only location. So if you would police that, that would be appreciated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, rather than opening several discussions on every particular aspect of this question, how about we open one large discussion issue of how to deal with:

• County Dublin vs. Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin
• County Tipperary vs. Tipperary South and Tipperary North

... with a mind to a generalisable approach to the question (with regards to categories, infoboxes, ledes, the works).

Rather than taking up MBs of space here, how about WP:IECOLL as a venue. Or a sub-page of this project page? --RA (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking that 24 and 25 were progressing very nicely. They serve as tytpes for the larger questions. If Education can be answered in a simple, civilised fashion, then the larger answers ought to flow from them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Upto you where you take it RA, however i feel that Asarlai's previous use of the term "traditional county" which we agreed against is now merited to help define between what are the traditional counties and the modern administrative counties. County Dublin does no longer exist officially, however it is still commonly used in various fields - thus i believe defining counties as either "traditional" as County Dublin is, or "administrative" for the modern counties such as Fingal that do have an official administrative purpose might be a good way to go.

The issue really does need clearing up as the "old" counties and "new" counties need a defining line drawn between them. We already use administrative for the "new" counties, even though officially the term "administrative" has been dropped by the state, and in some places on Wiki the use of "traditional" is used for the older ones. Thus i propose the usage of "traditional" and "administrative" as the line.

The term "historic" in place of "traditional" whilst having due weight, i believe would only cause problems with editors who'd feel uneasy with it. The same for using "modern" instead of "administrative". Mabuska ^(talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. They are just adjectives that are useful to draw a distinction between the two.

Also agree re: "historic" vs. "modern". "traditional" vs. "administrative" is best.

I'll post a link to start a generalised discussion this evening. --RA (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with traditional and administrative as labels and am willing to support them, unless someone raises a persuasive objection against them. --O'Dea (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. We may be back soon with new administrative counties, if certain government proposals are acted-upon, but the terminology will still work, and the 32 traditional counties will still be there. SeoR (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Terms traditional and administrative work better than the alternatives. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish to clarify my conditional agreement, above, to the use of the terms traditional and administrative. I see them simply as neutral adjectives of distinction between entities, and not to be used to smuggle in any attitudes, such as "Dublin is a traditional county" to mean it no longer really exists. Nor should the label "administrative" be an attempt to diminish new counties, as in "Fingal is (merely) an administrative entity." A semblance of consensus is building for the terms traditional and administrative, but if they turn out in practice to be an abuse, I will withdraw my support of them. --O'Dea (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What, if anything, has been agreed here? Can somebody come up with a succinct statement please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah we need some kind of declaratio to finish this issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we add something like the following to the MOS:

If it is necessary to make a distinction between the counties of Ireland that existed immediately before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (e.g. County Tipperary, County Dublin) and those created afterwards (e.g. South Tipperary, Fingal) use the adjective "traditional" to refer to the counties that existed immediately before that act and "administrative" to refer those created afterwards. Do not place the word "County" before the administrative counties created in the Republic of Ireland since 1994. When using a county as a geographic reference, including in categories, use the traditional counties rather than administrative counties, except where the topic relates closely to local government in the Republic of Ireland. Example:

• Nenagh is a town in County Tipperary, Ireland. It is the county town of North Tipperary.

This goes beyond what was discussed above (and would reverse many of Laurel Lodged's changes), so I am putting it here for discussion. --RA (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the above - clear and succinct. I am concerned that in the absence of something, changes are "just happening" - for example, one Dublin page I watch is now not in any Dublin category, after Places of Worship in County Dublin was removed, and not replaced with anything else - this is really not good enough. I still think the 26/32 counties should be the basis for most categories. SeoR (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not true to say that "Places of Worship in County Dublin" has not been replaced with anything else. It has been replaced with Category:Religion in Fingal County and with Category:Religion in Dublin City and with Category:Religion in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County. It will soon be joined by Category:Religion in South Dublin County]] thereby completing the quartet. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a significant improvement as greater specificity is to be preferred to lesser specificity and that each county should have its own category of Religion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you deleted the old category but did not replace it with anything - in the case I saw first, the new category was neither entered into the article text, nor created (it is a redlink, still, in your answer above). If you really feel the need to make these new categories, then the minimum responsibility is to do the job fully. But I do not believe this should have been done without community consensus.SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the RoI, unlike SeoR above, I think that the areas of local government, as defined by the Oireachtas, should be the basis for most categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And, with all due respect to the Oireachtas, however well or ill thought-out its actions, I think this is only one element - WP also puts a lot of weight on common understanding. And the admin. counties can, and will, change again - there is much current talk now of merging at least Councils or functions. SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like RA's version of the MOS. I prefer this version:

If it is necessary to make a distinction between the counties of Ireland that existed immediately before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (e.g. County Tipperary, County Dublin) and those created afterwards (e.g. South Tipperary, Fingal) use the adjective "traditional" to refer to the counties that existed immediately before that act and "administrative" to refer those created afterwards. Place the word "County" after the name of the particular administrative county that was created in the Republic of Ireland since 1994 (e.g. Fingla County). When using a county as a geographic reference, including in categories, use the administrative county as the primary reference. Mention may also be made afterwards of the common usage of the traditional name. Example:

• Nenagh is the county town of North Tipperary County in Ireland. Its population is blah. It has fine broad meadows. Historicaly, it was part of the traditional county of Tipperary.

Laurel Lodged

(talk) 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Two points:

• "Tipperary North County", "Fingal County" etc. are not the names of administrative counties per the 2001 act. The names of counties are simply "Tipperary North", "Fingal", etc (see schedule 5). The names of the relevant county councils are the [COUNTY NAME] + "County Council" (see section 11). Appending the word "County" to administrative county names is groundless and unnatural. It is not normal practice. This is in contrast to traditional practice where the name of the county is "County Tipperary", "County Dublin", etc..
• Normal practice (in the real world) is to give geographic locations in Ireland (north and south) by the traditional county. For example: "The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." (Faleer:2009) Thus, on the fine new motorway running from Cork to Dublin is located a sign (erected by either the NRA or local government) saying, "Welcome to County Tipperary".

--RA (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the facts in point 1 but come to a different conclusion. Firstly, schedule 5 spells the counties (correctly) as "North Tipperary" and "South Tipperary" (not as "Tipperary North" above). Secondly, my proposed MOV uses that exact spelling in the wikilink. I only add "County" afterwards to differentite it from the traditional counties where the name "County" would precede the county name (e.g. "County Wexford") if this agreement was to be followed. So to repeat, the names of the counties creaded after 1994 are "North Tipperary", "South Tipperary", "Fingal" etc. They are counties and so this needs to be made explicit. The options are "County North Tipperary" or "North Tipperary County". My suggestion is for the latter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tipp North/North Tipp was a typo. Regardless of it, the adding of "county" after (or before ) it is artificial. It doesn't have a basis either the legal nor common name for it. --RA (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I accept the typo point. As regards the artificiality of adding "County" (either before or after the named entity), this artificiality is true for both the traditional and non traditional counties. As you rightly point out, Schedule 5 is the standard for the name to which we should adhere. It can be observed that the area of local government known as "Wexford" is spelled as "Wexford" and not as "County Wexford". Similarly, the area of local government known as "North Tipperary" is spelled as "North Tipperary" and not as "County North Tipperary". Getting back to the main point, that proposed MOV convention to be adopted is that the distinguishing noun of "County" (as opposed to Tipperary town or Leitrim village) be added to the name of the area of local government. The proposal is that this distinguishing noun be added BEFORE the name of the entity in the case of the traditional counties (e.g. "County Wexford") and AFTER the name of the entity in the case of the non traditional counties (e.g. "Fingal County"). Is there any objection to this proposal? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

By "artificial" I mean that they are not called that, either officially or commonly, in the real world. For the traditional counties, it is common practice to add "County" before "Mayo", for example, to make "County Mayo". There is no such common practice for Tipperary North or Fingal. You are right that there is no such region of local government as "County Mayo" (again as an example), just as there has been no region of local government called "County Dublin" or "County Armagh". However, "County Mayo", "County Dublin" and "County Armagh" still exist in a real sense as geographic locations, even if they have ceased to be as places of local government.

The difference, I suppose, may be legitimate depending on whether we are talking about "County Mayo" as a geographic identifier or as an area of local government. So, for example:

• Castlebar is in County Mayo but is the seat of Mayo County Council (not County Mayo Council or Mayo County Council):
• Nenagh is in County Tipperary but is the seat of Tipperary North County Council.
• Newry is in County Armagh but is the seat of Newry and Mourne District Council.
• Swords is in County Dublin but is the seat of Fingal County Council.

The difference, I suppose, is that we are muddling geographic places and local government areas. which is confusing since in most cases they overlap but not always. Cork, for example, is is in County Cork but is not in the administrative county of Cork. --RA (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Coming out of the above post, I suppose, my proposal is to refer to the administrative counties (or district council in NI) by their councils, and give them by their full name (i.e. "X County Council"), whereas to refer the traditional counties to as places and give they the traditional name (i.e. "County X"). --RA (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There might be some merit in that. However, I'd be concerned that in a list or category that contained ONLY the tradional counties, that a reader might walk away with the impression that those tradiotional counties were still the basic unit of local government in the state. . At a minimum, some marker or disambig or See Alse in the leads would be necesary to alert the reader to this pitfall. Also, please note what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say on the topic. ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/140431/county/1581/United-Kingdom?anchor=ref708947 )

In the United Kingdom the county, or shire, has historically been the principal subdivision of the country for political, administrative, judicial, and cultural purposes. Each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—is divided into a number of historic counties. These historic counties, in many cases, no longer correspond to current administrative subdivisions but remain an important focus of local identity. Some judicial jurisdictions still use historic county boundaries rather than current administrative boundaries; and cultural activities, such as the sport of cricket, are still organized according to historic counties.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with RA's proposed changes as technically its wrong as it sounds as if County Tipperary is the official location of the town, when in fact it is North Tipperary. No doubt most sources will state County Tipperary anyways but time will tell whether they'll eventually get with the times or remain stuck in the past.

The present intro to the Nenagh article is a good basis to work on. I'd propose altering it to:

Nenagh ([ˈniːnæ]; Irish: Aonach Urmhumhan) is the county town of North Tipperary, Ireland, and is part of the traditional County Tipperary. It is the administrative centre of North Tipperary and in 2006 it had a recorded population of 7,415. It is located in the former barony of Ormond Lower, and is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe.

Or something along those lines. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mabuska's analysis and can Support his suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"No doubt most sources will state County Tipperary anyways but time will tell whether they'll eventually get with the times or remain stuck in the past." - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

"...and is part of the traditional County Tipperary" - That is a very odd way of saying that a town in such-and-such a place. Is Magherafelt part of the traditional County Londonderry?

However, there is nothing incompatible about what you have written with the guideline I propose above. --RA (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the guideline you proposed for the reasons stated above. Difference being that Northern Ireland has only ever had six counties and hasn't divided any of them up or redefined them into other counties, i.e. Dublin and Tipperary being prime examples. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mabuska, I could go with your Nenagh example. I'd rather not tack "County" on to the end of things, and you have put forward a workable model.

But on NI, I have to disagree - they redefined the admin. divisions entirely back in the 1970's, into a mess of "districts" and these, not the counties, form the basis for local government. But on all sides, the six county names are still observed too.

Overall, I think we should not make too much of this - the old counties continue, as they also do in NI and England, Wales, etc. - and those other locales manage well enough the co-existence of traditional counties and quite distinct current (and changing from time to time) admin. structures. SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually your wrong on the councils. The council districts created in 1973 actually replaced the Rural and Urban District Councils of NI that existed from 1921 to 1973. Their creation may coincide with the death of counties as adminstrative divisions but that is all they share - one did not replace the other.

If you go even further back, the Rural and Urban District Councils of NI where preceded by those of Ireland as a whole (1898-1921), then the Sanitary Districts (1878-1898), and then the Poor Law Unions (1838-1898). Mabuska ^(talk) 11:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that no consensus has been reached, and there are various ideas on the table (at least Laurel Lodged, RA, Mabuska), why is the creation of categories with e.g. Fingal County (as pointed out above, a construction with no validity in the real world) going ahead? This is not how WP is supposed to, or usually does, work. SeoR (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Category "Fingal County" does not exist. The Category "Fingal" exists but is not new (created in 2007). SeoR is perhaps thinking of the children of Category "Fingal". These children are identical to the children of Dublin city (e.g. education / sport /religion buildings). They contain the contain a consistent convention of placing the word "County" after the name of "Fingal". Who disagrees with this convention? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Who said this was about categories? It's about what to label the old traditional/historical counties versus the modern ones. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I think we can get one part of this issue settled and put to bed. We have by on large agreed that the terms "traditional" and "administrative" make best sense when differentiating between the old and newer counties. Whilst the issue in regards to settlement intros is still up for debate - i think there would be no issues with using the terms for the county intros. For example they currently state at the end of the first lede paragraph: "one of the thirty-two counties of Ireland". May i suggest we change this to "one of the thirty-two traditional counties of Ireland".

Funnily enough Asarlai had them like that until i proposed removing the term earlier this year. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What then would the lead for North Tipp say, "one of the modern adminstrative counties of Ireland" without numbering them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I take it that this proposal meets approval through the deafening silence? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

North Tipp etc would be "one of the 29 administrative counties of the Republic of Ireland" jnestorius^(talk) 06:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be best if a diplomatic veil was drawn over the number. The link provided by Jnestorius goes t0 "Tier 1 local government". A quick count shows that 29 entities have the word "county" in their title, however an additional 5 entities have the word "city" in their title. As the section title makes clear, all are Tier 1 entities and in law have parity of esteem. This leads inevitably to the following calcultaion (29 + 5 = 34). This can only give rise to confrontation between purists, moderates and irredentists. For this reason, I think that the formula "one of the modern adminstrative counties of Ireland" which did not number them, would be accurate enough without antagonising either camp. I commend the solution to the house. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the word "modern" here. The word "administrative" is sufficient to disambiguate from the "traditional" counties. jnestorius^(talk) 12:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrative however can refer to modern or traditional counties depending on context. I agree that not mentioning the number of counties can avoid the issues of exactly what number etc. should be used. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with user Mabuska. All counties are administrative. They have no other purpose. To say that 1 county has a function of administering local affairs while another county exists as a geographic area since time immemorial, is just nonsense. Even very old counties (and none is particularly old) originally fulfilled the function of administering local affairs. So "administrative" on its own will not solve the problem. It needs to be supported by either "traditional" or "modern" as explained above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So any more input on this or shall we summarise and set it in stone? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please summarize the proposal. I take it that "traditional" and "administrative" will be used to differentiate as most appear to agree with that approach, but that there's no proposals for dealing with specific examples like the lede for Nenagh? --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well i'll propose that since we can agree to the difference between traditional and administrative in use for county intros, that we implement it. The issue however around places within counties that have a different tradiontal and admnistrative such as Dublin/Fingal, Tipperary/North Tipperary will still be unresolved and open for debate and discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I take the lack of objections to this as a sign of indifference or consent? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In Law, silence always implies consent. But for the avoifdance of doubt, here's my positive consent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If I knew exactly what the proposal was, then I would know what I was consenting to. In general, I am happy to DAB, but only where necessary. So Tipp/Dub/NI then fine, go ahead. But I'd suggest that the guideline is documented in WP:IMOS first. And I don't see any need to go farther than traditional/administrative. 'modern' is unnecessary. Fmph (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To use traditional/administrative is unanimous from the looks of it anyways. Essentially Fmph, this issue has two fields - county intros and settlement intros. As county intros are the least problematic i've proposed we implement the distinction in its intro lede to state "one of the 32 traditional counties of Ireland". The settlement intro however is problematic as exemplified by Nenagh, is unresolved as of yet, and so my proposal is to implement county intros and leave settlement intros open for continued discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The unanimity identified above may be more apparent than real. At any rater user Snappy seems to dissent. I'm assuming this by his behaviour in several of the categories devoted to the modern administrative counties (e.g. Category:Foo in County Fingal). In all cases he has deleted the word county leaving just "foo in Fingal". I'd be interested in finding out why. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

AFAICS, the proposal here relates to the lead paragraph of articles on counties, and it looks like something I could support. But the content of lead paras has feck all to do with the naming of categories, so I don't see why you infer that Snappy's view on category names is in any way relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Totally off topic, but I edited the category descriptions to match the head article, e.g. in Category:Sport in Fingal, I removed the word county. Others like Category:Education in Fingal were already done. Now the descriptions all match the head article name. Btw, as this is already off topic, I won't reply to more off topic questions here. Start a new thread or post on my talk page. Snappy (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic indeed. So can we agree to at least this part of the issue? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice. Took a bold decision to add "traditional" to the lead of the counties of Connaght. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No-one objected to it anyways, its just the settlement introduction issue left to resolve now. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this new intro, it doesn't read very well. For example, now County Galway reads: "County Galway (Irish: Contae na Gaillimhe) is one of the twenty-six traditional counties of the Republic of Ireland and one of the thirty-two traditional counties in the island of Ireland.." The word traditional is repeated twice but never explained. There is no mention of the fact the Galway is an administrative county. The opening line of County Dublin reads almost the same even though it has been defunct since 1994. Traditional gives the impression it no longer exists, as in traditional dress. Also, why is it mentioned as a traditional county twice, once for RoI and then again for the island of Ireland. Maybe something like this would be better: County Galway (Irish: Contae na Gaillimhe) is an administrative county in the Republic of Ireland. It is one of the thirty-two traditional counties in the island of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd Notice. For the sake of consistency, I did the same to all the other counties, including Northern Ireland. No doubt I'll be lambasted for this latter move. Nothing new there. Don't know who posted the above, but it's not a bad suggestion. I have to admit that I felt the double "traditional", while accurate, was a bit clunky. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted the above (now signed). I agree, this double traditional is quite clunky. Snappy (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to say the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland ... and the island of Ireland. It should be the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland ... and Ireland. Why? Because if we write Republic/Northern we've already disambiguated it. Also, the term traditional should only be used when referring to the 32 counties. ~Asarlaí 11:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Asarlai have you fotgotten that the NI county intros including the "the island of Ireland" bit was the stop-gap measure we, Scolaire and RA and all agreed to in June last year? It has been stable since so it should be left the way it was - other than the inclusion of "traditional" in regards to the 32 counties which i have done.

I also agree with Snappy's proposal - i did think it was clunky and am guilty of adding the double "traditional" myself and wasn't sure what to do about the modern administrative tag. We don't actually have to say "26 counties" which means we don't have to disambig it from the modern administrative county number (29 isn't it)? Just stating as Snappy did in his proposal is clearer and better i believe.

Just to state though - "traditional" doesn't mean something that doesn't exist anymore. A lot of things are traditional but still exist. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with what users Snappy and Mabuska have written. Think we're making progress here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a pity you have to actually make changes to get people to respond - asking for more comments seems to achieve nothing unless you just go and change something. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So anyway, what is it that we are currently agreeing on, working towards? My last suggestion, a variation thereof, something else? Snappy (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing really, you sorted out the problem with your proposal of: "County Galway (Irish: Contae na Gaillimhe) is an administrative county in the Republic of Ireland. It is one of the thirty-two traditional counties in the island of Ireland.". The only thing that needs debated upon and resolved is how to treat the introductions of places that lie in a traditional county but an adminsitrative county that isn't the same. I.e. the much stated Nenagh. Its in the traditional County Tipperary, but is part of the present administrative county of North Tipperary. I think the issue is how to word it, or resolve it or something. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No consensus

Folks - I have read all the above thread and make the following comments: (1) This debate has no bearing whatsoever on the piping of RoI (2) It has not established any new consensus about the nature of the lead in County articles. (3) I see no vote on any specific proposal, no notification of interested parties, no input by more than a handful of Irl Proj editors (4) I oppose any attempt to overturn piping per IMOS with the blanket County X is an administrative county in the Republic of Ireland. It is one of the thirty-two traditional counties in the island of Ireland. - this is simply wrong and misleading in many cases. So I'd ask those who have reverted my recent edits and accused me of "edit warring" to back off. Politely asking of course. Sarah777 (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Two relevant discussions at WP:CFD:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 8#North_Tipperary
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 8#South_Tipperary

Both are group nominations to remove the suffix "County" from the category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In the same vein:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 8#Dun_Laoghaire-Rathdown
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 8#Fingal

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to notify the Project that I had submitted a proposal regarding Lists of Irish monarchs to CFD here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Parliamentary constituencies in 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) 04:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This is to notify the Project that I have submitted a proposal regarding Category:Irish Government to CFD here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing creating another category called Category:Executive Government of the Republic of Ireland, while we already have Category:Irish Government, Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Government of Ireland. The whole area need a good re-org/cleanup. Snappy (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction - I have not proposed the creation of a category. My proposal concerns the re-naming of an existing category with a very confusing name. But I agree that all the cats you mention need a good re-org. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommended that you withdraw your proposal until a full debate has taken place here. Snappy (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a general re-examination of these categories is needed, and that the CFD nom should be withdrawn pending a wider discussion.

However, in the last few days, Laurel Lodged has done a lot of recategorisation in this area, including depopulating at least one category out-of-process. LL even removed both Tánaiste and Taoiseach from Category:Irish Government (edits [7] and [8]). In view of the long history of this sort of disruption, I have asked LL to immediately stop all recategorising.

LL's first response was to refuse ... so while that is being addressed, please beware that the current state of these categories reflects both some long-standing issues and some recent disruption which has not yet been fully reverted, and wghich there amy be more of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that user:Laurel Lodged could not work with other editors in achieving consensus but seems to seek out conflict. Posting a notice here regarding the current confusing Irish government categories would have been a logical first step. Unfortunately, a typically combative approach has been taken by this user, how disappointing. I hope all editors concerned can discuss their views here in order to achieve a common approach to this issue. Snappy (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

User Snappy's tut-tutting would be easier to swallow if it wasn't for the fact that he is aware that his mentor BHG is guilty of precisely the same offence. If by-passing this Project and proceeding directly to CFD is the great sin, then it was BHG who started the trend. To deplore my actions while willfuly ignoring her actions is just rank hypocracy. To refresh your memory goto of December 8th. I complained that "Regarding the prefix / suffix debate. These arguments have been well rehersed on Project Ireland. I'm pleased with the progress that has been made and that will continue to be made. Clearly the emerging concensus may not be to the liking of all, but that's democracy for you. Certainly, in the interests of peace, I've been more than accommodating to the various sections and have consented to a prefix solution for the traditional counties and a suffix solution for the modern administrative counties. If you have an issue with that, the Project page is the place to raise it. You made no contributions there, proceeding to this place instead, directly". In reply, BHG stated "I proceeded here because it was quite clear that there was no consensus at WT:IE for your unilaterally-imposed suffixes on the category names, and there were clear objections from others. Since the discussion had dragged on for months without resolution, I brought the categories here to seek a wider consensus .. and just as at WT:IE, you are in a minority of one in championing the neologisms." O tempora! O mores! Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that BHG is not my mentor, I've been on wikipedia about a year longer than her, and while we agree on some issues, we have very heated discussions in the past, all of which were resolving civilly. Might be a lesson in that for you. P.S. You have my full permission to copy and re-use my posts in any manner you see fit! Snappy (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies exist between titles of articles about Irish roads, and their corresponding categories. I propose a rename of the three categories, as shown in the following table, to align them with the article titles.

I have posted these three categories to the Categories for discussion page, if you would like to comment. — O'Dea 18:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that user:O'Dea could not work with other editors in achieving consensus but seems to seek out conflict. Posting a notice here regarding the current confusing Irish road categories would have been a logical first step. Unfortunately, a typically combative approach has been taken by this user, how disappointing. I hope all editors concerned can discuss their views here in order to achieve a common approach to this issue. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted those remarks above in good faith, addressing the concerns that I has about your behaviour. I am not the only editor to have concerns regarding your approach to editing on wikipedia. By posting these remarks, I assume as a joke, you have shown yourself to be acting like a petulant little child. Disappointing indeed. Snappy (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Laurel, I see no evidence whatsoever that O'Dea is trying to "seek out conflict". O'Dea nominated the categories at Categories for discussion, as any editor is entitled to do, and although there is no obligation to notify a wikiproject, O'Dea courteously did so. Your attack is unfounded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

BHG, that comment by user:Laurel Lodged, is a copy of my remarks in the Irish Government section above. Perhaps its an attempt at humour. Snappy (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I had spotted that it was a copy, but at this point I don't find Laurel Lodged funny any more. Even if LL thinks that being an echo chamber is funny, it was quite inappropriate to take a swipe at O'Dea, whose conduct has been wholly collaborative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I laughed in amazement at the bizarre accusation that I am seeking out conflict. Anyone (reasonable) reading my proposal can see that its purpose is to seek consensus. Note my final words, above, Mr. Lodged: "I have posted these three categories to the Categories for discussion page, if you would like to comment." That is open and "collaborative", to use BrownHairedGirl's word. I am mystified that anyone could infer from a patently consensus-seeking action that I am, in fact, seeking conflict—and I reject the accusation in a state of bewilderment. Perhaps after considering the facts more carefully, Mr. Lodged would like to apologise, in the Wikipedian spirit of assuming good faith, and avoiding conflict. — O'Dea 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think an apology from User:Laurel Lodged to Odea is in order. Snappy (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, what do you mean by my "typically combative approach" and can you cite evidence of such typicality from Wikipedia discussion histories? I notice, too, that your actual response to my proposal (which you describe as "almost right") on the categories for discussion page was less hostile. I don't understand you. — O'Dea 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to recent editing, I have started a new debate on Irish language names for people who did not use them at WP:IMOS. The discussion can be found here. Snappy (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite a number of articles are now in place about the old sub-divisions of counties known as baronies - see Barony (Ireland). It is common for the names of some of these baronies to coincide withthe names of towns, for example Ratoath and Castleknock. This gives rise to the need for some sort of disambiguator. In the case of Ratoath the parentheses convention is used - Ratoath (barony). In the case of Castleknock, the full title is used - Barony of Castleknock. I think that it is unsatisfactory to have inconsistent styles and would like to get agreement on a common style for all Irish baronies. Personally I favour the Castleknock convention but am open to persuasion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is relevant here. Do you have any evidence either way on whether a barony called "foo" is more commonly referred to as "foo" or as the "barony of foo"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As i understand naming conventions, when there are two articles that share the same name but are of two different types for example a town article and a barony article, then () should be used to differeniate. After being notified of this myself i changed all the barony articles i created to follow that standard for example Coleraine (barony). If however there is only one article on Wikipedia with that name then it doesn't need () or anything. So say for example there is an article about the barony of Castleknock and there is no other Castleknock article to get confused with then simply Castleknock will do. The ( ) is the standard on Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately both of the above are true which doesn't help. All the old genealogies, for example, refer to X, gentleman, in the barony of y in the county of Z. But it's also true to say that ( ) is the standard on Wikipedia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Genealogies aren't entirely locations. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. It's just that I'm hoping for an elegant solution. Failing that, I'd settle for a consistent solution. While there is no other entity like Iffa and Offa West, for example, in the event of the "Barony of Iffa and Offa West" not finding favour, I'd prefer to see "Iffa and Offa West (barony)" rather than the current name, even though it needs no disambiguation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If no disambiguator is needed, don't add one. See WP:PRECISION. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If we here agree to a style, who's to gainsay it? If we agree to the use of a prefix or parentheses, even if they are not strictly necessary, then it can be done. Where there is an overarching national need, policy can be bent. There is no need to disambiguate County Kerry, for example, as no town of that name exists. Yet all the sub-cats for the county contain the word "County" in their name. So if we agree to a style here, it can be done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think it is a good idea to add a disambiguator when none is needed?

Your references to county continues your long-standing refusal to understand he difference between a name and a disambiguator, which has been explained to you at least 487 billion times in CFD discussions ... but I'll try again:

• the counties are called "County Foo" because that is their name. There is no disambiguator
• If a county was commonly known as "Foobar", we would call it "Foobar", unless "Foobar was ambiguous ... in which case we would add a disambiguator: "Foobar (county)".

In this case, if the Baronies are called "Barony of Foo", we call them that. If they are called "Foo", we call them that, and add a disambiguator of needed: "Foo (barony)". Simple. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't a need to diambiguate the article it should be avoided to follow WP article naming conventions. So in the case of "Iffa and Offa West", it would be just that - the articles lede will establish that its a barony. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If we continue in this direction, user JNESTORIUS will be very upset. At a minimum the baronies of Barrets, Bear, Barrymore, Carbery West and Carbery East will need to be re-named. And that's just county Cork. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Then please give Jnestorious a notification of this discussion (neutrally-worded, per WP:CANVASS) and let's see what zie brings to the table. More heads will lead to a more stable decision, whatever it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

When I created List of baronies of Ireland, I added redlinks for each (except the few that were already there). The convention I adopted was "Foo" if no disambiguation was needed and "Barony of Foo" otherwise. The alternatives are:

• "Foo, County Bar" -- this is not adequate since in many cases the barony is being disambiguated from a town called Foo also in county Bar
• "Foo (barony)" -- I think "Barony of Foo" is a common enough as a real-world formulation to be preferable to a Wikipedia-specific parenthetical disambiguator. It's not as common as "County Foo", but more common than, say, "Town of Foo".

Where multiple baronies have the same name, (County Bar) is dab; e.g. Barony of Carbury (County Kildare) and Clanwilliam (County Limerick). Alternatively, these might be Barony of Carbury, County Kildare and Clanwilliam, County Limerick. jnestorius^(talk) 09:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems Mabuska has started moving articles from "Barony of Foo" to "Foo (barony)". Was consensus reached? If so then they should all be moved en masse, and the redlinks in List of baronies of Ireland adjusted.

BTW, I disagree with the assertion that 'the counties are called "County Foo" because that is their name.' The name is "Foo"; "County Foo" is a natural disambiguator, and as such has precedence over an artificial disambiguator "Foo (county)". I believe having e.g. Wicklow and Donegal linking to the towns rather than the counties was a bad decision way back when, and a violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Contrary to Laurel's "If we here agree to a style, who's to gainsay it", a Wikiproject cannot give itself the authority to opt out of the general MOS. jnestorius^(talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but I agree with User Jnestorius when he says that "The name is "Foo"; "County Foo" is a natural disambiguator". All the old documents speak of "the county of X". Only in relatively recent times (i.e. the last couple of centuries), has this been capitalised and simultaniously contracted to "County X". As to whether the town or the county has first dibs on the name, I'm open to persuasion. Which is why it is an utter nonsence to deny Fingal its rightful name of "County Fingal". What's sauce for the goose...Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually Jnestorius i moved one article to fit in line with every other barony in Northern Ireland to the proper naming conventions as i was pointed out to as i intend to create the County Down barony articles very soon (after a long break on NI baronies). Other than Dufferin, i have created every single Northern Ireland barony article (save for County Down yet - see my user page for a full list) and have them all along the lines of the proper naming convention that i was notified of and asked to implement - long before this discussion was even raised (29/12/2010). I am only readjusting Dufferin to fit in with the rest of the NI barony articles that have such a disambig:

• Armagh (barony) (created 28/09/2010)
• Coleraine (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
• Carrickfergus (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
• Cary (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
• Keenaght (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
• Dungannon (barony) (created 08/10/2010)
• Coole (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
• Clogher (barony) (renamed to that style on 28/09/2010)

Where this disambig really makes sense can be seen in Keenaght. Its a townland and a barony. Do we call it the "Townland of Keenaght"? No, we call it Keenaght (townland). A town and a barony are two different kinds of entity - thus if two such articles have the same name they are meant to be disambiguated in that style. Article titles such as "Coole, County Westmeath" and "Coole, County Antrim" are two things are of the same type: i.e. settlements as opposed to a settlement and a barony so that is the way they should be and are disambiguated.

Though i must admit, i did totally forget about the Baronies of Ireland article and will update it if you don't object Jnestorius? Then again they would all be redlinked other than Dufferin if i hadn't of created the articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, County Armagh should be Armagh (county) since it is a different type from Armagh (barony). The reason it is not is that "County Armagh" is a real-world formulation, and thus preferable to an arbitrary one. My argument is that "Barony of Armagh" is similarly a real-world formation. I don't think we disagree over the principles involved; the contention is over how widespread the formulation "Barony of Foo" is.

On another side issue, I am sceptical of the value of articles about townlands. Are they WP:NOTABLE? jnestorius^(talk) 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry i had to move your last comment as it cut into the middle of mine. Actually County Armagh is regularly known as County Armagh so there is no need for such a disambiguator. There is no need to adjust it to that style as it follows common name rules. Though you bring up an excellant name that backs up the style i adopted: Armagh (disambiguation) - look at how many different kinds of Armagh there is and look at how every single one of them in disambiguated. Other than settlements which follow the correct style for them - every single one that needs disambiguating is in brackets.

The only one that doesn't is the city as when you say Armagh thats what you think of first, especially as the county is known as County Armagh. County Foo is used in the news/media/web/letters etc. and always as "C"ounty. I have never seen use of "B"arony of Foo in the middle of a sentence meaning it is not being used as a proper name but as a descriptor.

Not everything needs disambiguated anyways for example Armagh city as the thing you think of most next is known as County Armagh. Only the less notable things need the disambiguator. The barony would be less notable thing.

And yes i agree about the townlands to an extent. I do plan to merge them all into a single article or so, but it needs a lot of careful planning and readjusting to make sure it doesn't look massively clunky. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of your response does not address my core question; the exception being the statement I have never seen use of "B"arony of Foo in the middle of a sentence meaning it is not being used as a proper name but as a descriptor. Google evidence e.g. "barony of" site:debates.oireachtas.ie is mixed; but in any case I didn't posit a distinction between proper name and descriptor, but rather between a natural mode of disambiguation and an artificial one. The initial capital in e.g. Barony of Barretts is WP:NCTR rather than intentional; it might as easily be wikilinked barony of Barretts. Having said all that, if there is a danger of miscontruing the "Barony of Foo" form as somehow official then I can live with Barretts (barony) instead....

...in which case: there are 21 baronies in the list with county disambiguations because there is a barony in another county with the same name; how will these be named? There are different types:

Clanwilliam (County Tipperary)

Clanwilliam (County Tipperary) (as is) or Clanwilliam, County Tipperary or Clanwilliam (County Tipperary barony) or Clanwilliam (barony, County Tipperary)

Barony of Forth (County Carlow)

should have same format as preceding, whatever that will be

Barony of Bantry (County Cork)

(town in same county) Bantry (County Cork barony) or Bantry (barony, County Cork) or Bantry, County Cork (barony)

jnestorius^(talk) 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your points and when speaking of a barony in plain English we would say "barony of Foo" as that link highlights. Hmm i think if we used the guidelines on disambiguating things and places there might be a solution. Settlements use the style Foo, County Foo etc. to disambiguate between places of the same name. Well as several baronies have the same name but lie in different counties we could do the following:

Clanwilliam, County Tipperary and Clanwilliam, County Limerick

Forth, County Carlow and Forth, County Wexford

Bantry, County Cork and Bantry, County Wexford

This would mean that as each have a seperate name then that makes them distinct from each other meaning there is no need to disambiguate them with (barony).

And as the Bantry town article is at Bantry and the American Bantry at Bantry, North Dakota - then everything is disambiguated without a mess. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It would certainly be wrong to use Bantry, County Cork for the barony; it should redirect to Bantry on the principle of least surprise. (I had almost added it already but I didn't want to pre-empt this discussion.) There are others of the same type; Newcastle, County Dublin already points to the village, so the Dublin barony of Newcastle will need some form of dab. jnestorius^(talk)

Hmm i was wondering about the Bantry one myself. Well for Clanwilliam and Forth the above suggestion could work well. For Bantry, County Cork and Newcastle, County Dublin - as both may have another article with that exact name or a redirect then they could add the disambiguator, i.e. Bantry, County Cork (barony). Though we could also use the above suggestion and add a "For the town of Bantry" link at the top of the barony article?? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To repeat what I wrote above, I favour the Castleknock style. This would give us the following solution for the problematic ones:

Barony of Clanwilliam, County Tipperary

Barony of Clanwilliam, County Limerick

Barony of Bantry, County Cork

Barony of Bantry, County Wexford

Barony of Forth, County Carlow

Barony of Forth, County Wexford

And in all cases that need disambiguation from a town or townland but where the eponymous town or townland is in the same county, then use

Barony of Castleknock or Barony of Ratoath.

In all other cases, the simple name will suffice without disambiguation (e.g. Eliogarty). Though I have to say that my preference would be for this too the read "Barony of Eliogarty" for the sake of consistency. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To state "Barony of" when unneeded is verbose. If there is nothing else of the same name then the name of the thing alone is enough. So Eliogarty would and should remain Eliogarty. The style: Bantry, County Cork (barony) fits naming styles better. In fact unless there is a town called Clanwilliam in County Tipperary then Clanwilliam, County Tipperary doesn't need to state barony at all as nothing else can be confused for it as the other Clanwilliams will be Clanwilliam, County Limerick and Clanwilliam whatever. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually looking at the convention articles on naming articles, they say that if disambiguation is needed then to do so with brackets or with commas when needed. Using adjectives in the name such "Barony of" it says is "rarely used", but is permitted. So technically we are both following conventions.

However as the majority of the actual created barony articles follows the plain name without stating "Barony of" at the start, and not every redlink at List_of_baronies_of_Ireland has it either then i would argue against mass-moving articles to "Barony of". Mabuska ^(talk) 12:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Anymore thoughts on this? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In no one objects i propose we adopt the "(barony)" disambiguation convention as its the most appropriate i feel. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated David Kenny for deletion on ground of being non-notable. Feel free to add your comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Kenny_(2nd_nomination) MoyrossLADY (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion on when does a TD cease to be one is taking place at Talk:Brian Cowen#No longer a TD, if anyone wishes to contribute. Snappy (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a dispute at Talk:Raidió Teilifís Éireann regarding the correct interpretation of IMOS at this article and whether Ireland or Republic of Ireland is most in keeping with the manual of style in this instance. The issue appears to be deadlocked at present. Could we have some comments there from hitherto uninvolved editors please with a view to resolution? RashersTierney (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue escalating from 'deadlocked' to 'disruptive' here. Would really appreciate some uninvolved oversight at this article. RashersTierney (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Boundary Commission (Ireland)#Requested move-->Irish Boundary Commission jnestorius^(talk) 11:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I realise that Ireland, and the nationalities of its citizens can be a touchy subject. Please see Talk:Flight Avia Flight 7100 where I have proposed one method of dealing with describing the nationalities of the victims. Civil, constructive discussion on my suggestion, an proposals of alternates for discussion is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

A while back I posted a request on the talk page for the County Westmeath article requesting images or information about Shinglas and Baronston; the estates of Edmond Malone (the famous 18th-century Shakespeare scholar) and his brother Richard Malone, Lord Sunderlin. The Baronston estate was inherited from their uncle Anthony Malone, who was both an M.P. and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Edmond was, in addition to being a great Shakesperean scholar, also an Irish patriot, associating with Henry Flood and Henry Grattan, contributing in a minor fashion to Baratariana, and corresponded with James Caulfeild, 1st Earl of Charlemont his whole life (Malone, living in London, procured books for Charlemont). Admittedly this subject is a bit obscure for most people, but if anyone has information, suggested sources, or pictures of these houses that would be very helpful. --Xover (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Due to a 'reference' edit made in January 2011, that article's infobox was rendered too wide & thus shoving the intro too far left & making it too narrow. Anybody know how to fix it? GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How's that? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much better. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who edits articles about places in South Dublin might be interested in the detailed administrative and electoral information available at South Dublin County Council's website (and possibly at other county councils). I created the following table for the article about the Dublin suburb of Templeogue using data from the county council's website. The council document I referred to (a Word document) covers the other suburbs and areas of South Dublin in a similar way and the information can be incorporated into articles about those suburbs, if desired.

The Book column, below, contains a code which corresponds to the Polling District code shown in online electoral register inquiries. I can explain the detail of how I discovered which schools correspond to which Polling Places upon request.

Polling places:
  A. Bishop Shanahan National School
  B. St. Peter's National School
  C. St. Pius X National School

— O'Dea 06:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

An alternative version of the table can contain detailed Electoral Division data:

— O'Dea 07:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice tables. Maybe you should create the South Dublin County Council article to put them in. (Its a redirect to South Dublin currently), as this info relates more to the Council than the County. Snappy (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Rich information indeed. The second version being the richer, but also having a rather big footprint (the boxes somehow take extra blank space), I'd rather the first style. SeoR (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the first, more elegant style because the second one creates unnecessary bloat because of how the wikitable renders hidden data within a table cell. It is unnecessary to pad the cell on all four sides when adding the words "Show/hide" at the right hand side, but that's how it works, unfortunately. Perhaps raw HTML rendering of the table would cure the oedema. — O'Dea (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-coded the table using a different method which reduces row height and improves the proportions of the table:

Administrative and electoral structures of Templeogue

County Council	Local Electoral Area	Dáil Constituency Area	Polling District	Book	Electoral Division	Polling Place
South Dublin	Tallaght Central	Dublin South West	Templeogue 1	HM	Templeogue-Osprey Kennington Close Kennington Crescent Kennington Lawn Kennington Road Osprey Avenue Osprey Drive Osprey Lawn Osprey Park Rushbrook Avenue Rushbrook Court Rushbrook Crescent Rushbrook Drive Rushbrook Grove Rushbroom Park Rushbrook Road Rushbrook View Rushbrook Way Spawell Cottages Templeogue Wellington Cottages Wellington Terrace Wilderwood Grove Willington Avenue Willington Court Willington Crescent Willington Drive Willington Green Willington Grove Willington Lawn Willington Park	Orwell A
			Templeogue 2	HP	Templeogue-Cypress (part) That part of the Templeogue-Cypress Electoral District south of Templeogue Road containing the townlands / streetnames of: Cheeverstown House, Templeogue Road Corrybeg Hillcrest Hillcrest Manor The Strand	Orwell
			Templeogue 3	HQ	Templeogue-Orwell Cypress Downs (The Court) Cypress Downs (The Heath) Cypress Grove Road Domville Road Glendown Avenue Glendown Close Glendown Court Glendown Crescent Glendown Drive Glendown Green Glendown Grove Glendown Lawn Glendown Park Orwell Park Avenue Orwell Park Close Orwell Park Crescent Orwell Park Drive Orwell Park Glade Orwell Park Glen Orwell Park Green Orwell Park Grove Orwell Park Lawns Orwell Park Way Templeville Road The Manor, Orwell Park Grove Wellington Lane Wellington Park Whitehall Cross Wellington Road Whitehall Cross (Houses)	Orwell
			Templeogue 4	HR	Templeogue-Cypress (part) That part of the Templeogue-Cypress Electoral District north of Templeogue Road containing the townlands / streetnames of: Cypress Downs (The Avenue) Cypress Downs (The Close) Cypress Downs (The Drive) Cypress Downs (The Green) Cypress Downs (The Manor) Cypress Downs (The Park) Cypress Downs (The Walk) Cypress Grove North Cypress Grove Road Cypress Grove South Cypress Grove White Fathers Cypress Lawn Domville Drive Domville Green Domville Road Kilvere Park, Cypress Downs Orwell Park Dale Orwell Park Heights Orwell Park Rise Orwell Park View Rossmore Avenue Rossmore Close Rossmore Crescent Rossmore Drive Rossmore Grove Rossmore Lawn Rossmore Park Rossmore Road Templeogue Templeogue Lodge Templeogue Wood The Watercourse, Rossmore Road	Orwell
			Templeogue 5	HT	Templeogue-Village Ashfield Bushy Park House, Templeogue Road Cypres Garth Cypress Grove Road Cypress Park Fortrose Park Riverside Cottages Rosehall Estate Springfield Avenue Springfield Crescent Springfield Drive Springfield Park Springfield Road Templeogue Road Templeogue Village Templeville Avenue Templeville Drive Templeville Park Templeville Road	Orwell
			Limekiln 1	HK	Templeogue-Limekiln Convent of St. Paul The Apostle Corrig Close Fernhill Avenue Fernhill Park Fernhill Road Glendoo Close Glenmurray Park Greentrees Road Keadeen Avenue Kilakee Close Kilakee Drive Kilmashogue Close Kilmashogue Drive Kilmashogue Grove Kippure Avenue Limekiln Avenue Limekiln Close Limekiln Court Limekiln Drive Limekiln Green Limekiln Park Limekiln Road Lugnaquilla Avenue Mountdown Avenue Mountdown Drive Mountdown Park Mountdown Road St. Finbarr's Close St. James' Road St. Killian's Avenue St. Mel's Avenue Temple Manor Avenue Temple Manor Close Temple Manor Court Temple Manor Drive Temple Manor Grove Temple Manor Way Three Rock Close Tibradden Close Tibradden Drive Tibradden Grove Tonduff Close Tymon North Wellington Road	Limekiln B
		Dublin South Central	Fortfield	HS	Templeogue-Kimmage Manor College Crescent College Drive College Park College Sq Wainsfort Road Fortfield Avenue Fortfield Drive Fortfield Grove Fortfield Park Fortfield Road Fortfield Square Glenanne Glendale Park Grosvenor Court Hyde Park Kimmage Manor Kimmage Manor Way Kimmage Road West Manor Avenue Priory Hall Priory Walk Priory Way St. Anne's Templeogue College, Templeville Road Templeogue Road Templeville Road The Courtyard, Fortfield Square The Crescent, Fortfield Square The Mews, Fortfield Square The Orchard, Fortfield Road The Recorders, Whitehall Road Wainsfort Avenue Wainsfort Crescent Wainsfort Drive Wainsfort Gardens Wainsfort Grove Wainsfort Manor Crescent Wainsfort Manor Drive Wainsfort Manor Green Wainsfort Manor Grove Wainsfort Park Wainsfort Road Wellington Road Whitehall Close Whitehall Gardens Whitehall Park Whitehall Road	Fortfield C

— O'Dea (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to draw the attention of anyone interested in Irish music/song to List of Irish ballads, where another editor has had issues with references (or perceived lack thereof). Would appreciate comment or feedback. Hohenloh ⁺ 02:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:83.71.96.3 claims that Aghada is humorously known to locals as Andrew Meaghers Playboy Mansion "from an eccentric Cork libertine who used to commonly visit the local brothel and tip very generously according to local legend back in the roaring 20s"[9] and gave the book Down paths of gold as a source. The book is self-published and probably not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. I consider his account highly unlikely; would it be worth the effort to find out if the book actually says what 83.71.96.3 claims? Huon (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of Irish saints have been renamed without discussion: see this report. I don't know if the moves are right or wrong, but I wanted to make people aware of what's going on. --JaGa^talk 19:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just had a quick look. They seem okay, just amended to the best form of their actual name, with accents et al. I do the same myself quite a lot because the state of Gaelic-Irish names can often leave a lot to be desired. Fergananim (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I raised the same issue on one particular article with Cavila several days ago. Personnally all these moves should have been discussed before hand. I still think WP:COMMONNAME should apply whether or not a few academic sources use the Irish name with fadas and all. This is the English language Wikipedia and the most common English form should be used unless the pure Gaelic form is the most common English form. But User:Deacon of Pndapetzim gave a valid enough reason for the moves over at Cavilas talk page. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Very impressed with that discussion, and especially this input from Decon - "Upward conformity with the most reliable sources, and indeed the more authentic name, is in any case inheritenly desirable and should be preferenced where the issue is otherwise evenly weighted." Delights me to find Wikipedians like you boys and girls! Fergananim (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We strive to please :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at Template talk:Current TDs about whether TDs should be listed by full name or surname only. — O'Dea (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Portlaoise or Port Laoise article has been renamed back and forth by moving its contents on five occasions because editors dispute the name of the town. The last move-rename was by me to recover the article edit history that was lost when User:193.130.120.206 performed a botched cut-and-paste move on 11 January 2011. I have consulted official sources in trying to obtain the official name of the town, but Irish national and County Laois officialdom use both names for the town, in English. I have described my research on the article talk page. Another discussion of the name occurred in 2007. When Irish authorities are inconsistent, how can Wikipedia editors settle on an agreed and fixed title for the article, so we can point to it when any dispute about the name arises in future? — O'Dea 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I have moved O'Dea's second comment to Talk:Port Laoise#Official confusion about the name of the town. and added my comment there -- jnestorius^(talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Crisis pregnancy center currently has a short section on the CPA/CPP, but I don't know enough about the situation in Ireland to properly determine whether or not the content belongs in the article. I've described my concerns at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center#Ireland, redux - could anyone help out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion about merging these two articles at Talk:888sport.com Six-red World Championship. The merge is agreed by all parties, but the point of contention is which way around it is done. At the moment there are only three editors involved in the discussion so a few more opinions would be welcome. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)