POV issues at Gaelic Athletic Association. Small number of editors creating a lot of work steering this article on a neutral course. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't quite got the knack for explainng things properly and posting something balanced and even-handed, but i will give you credit for trying though. Definately makes an improvement from the POV laden statement you made at the GAA WikiProject. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That was not a POV-laden statement. Please stop following me around per WP:WIKIHOUNDING. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as i'm a member of WikiProject Ireland i am hardly following you around. Please stop your baseless accusations. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've closed this nomination, the discussion for which contains several proposals dealing with the government category tree. The proposal therein by User:Snappy has gained some consensus, so I think you can implement it or something like it at your discretion. If this involves merging or deleting a category, feel free to bring it back to CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we should be including townlands along with the villages in the NI county templates, for example:

I think we should be keeping the townlands seperate from the villages. There is to me little point in adding in a few townlands and ignoring the names of the rest, and having them mixed amongst the complete list (or possibly complete) of villages. Adding all townlands, red-linked or not, to create a complete list would however be rediculous as there are so many townlands.

So should we add a new section to the template specifically for townlands, specifically for those that actually have an article. Or should we remove them altogether? Though that would deprive them of a way of being found.

A possibile solution could be, due to the possible lack of notability for most townland articles (of which i've created many, and no doubt lack notability), we could instead create and add civil parish articles to the county templates. Each civil parish article can list its constituent townlands and we can add details of those townlands that we have details for rather than having seperate articles for them??

Thoughts? Ideas?

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We should start tagging the non-notable townland articles for deletion. The problem is finding which townlands have settlements within them. Most townlands would have people living in them, but only some are classed as hamlets/villages. There should be some sort of cut-off point. ~Asarlaí 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposer that removing townlands altogether would be incorrect because the templates are called "Places in..." and townlands are certainly places in, so they belong within the templates.

I am not convinced of the necessity of separating villages from townlands because in so many cases, they are the same. A great many townlands are named after villages, or vice versa, and continue to share the same name. I have sometimes modified town or village articles by adding "and townland" in the lead sentence, as follows: "Ardkillderrycarrigballynahown is a village and townland in Countyname, Ireland."

I foresee no attempt being made to create articles for every townland, of which there are so many, but if that ever happened, it could be useful to look at the question again. The county templates are presently in no danger of being overwhelmed. If someone wants to write articles about obsolete civil parishes, good luck to them, but I would hate to be faced with the practical difficulties of researching enough material about the parishes to create such unnecessary articles, distinct from the villages and townlands.

While a separate berth could be created within county templates for townlands only, it would increase the height of the templates, and I can't see how it would help anyone, really. Are readers being badly confused by the existing arrangement? I can't imagine so, particularly when the articles in question begin, "Ardkillderrycarrigballynahown is a village [or townland, or village and townland]", so everything is clear. Villages and townlands are, together, tertiary settlement structures and I can see why they sit easily together within the templates. I am quite comfortable with the existing arrangements because they work. — O'Dea 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I know about the naming of places after townlands and that several settlement articles have the "and townland" including in the introduction. Though there are townlands in the lists that aren't a village or settlement. Knockmore being an example, though unlike some of the ones i've come across it has notability. So should we just have notable townlands listed in the template?

The suggestion of adding civil parishes (as there are far fewer of them than townlands), is so that we can list all the townlands in those articles, whilst including the structure between the barony and townland which is the civil parish. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"So should we just have notable townlands listed in the template?" - In my mind, there shouldn't be articles about non-notable townlands to begin with. I understand what you're proposing with the parishes, but I agree with O'Dea on this one. ~Asarlaí 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

But there are, already, lists of townlands for each county showing which baronies, civil parishes, and poor law unions they belong to: I created most of them, County Carlow, for example, and those lists giving civil parish data are readily accessible within most, if not all, county templates. — O'Dea 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Points taken. That is a really good format and style for townland list articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, you began this by saying, "I'm wondering whether we should be including townlands along with the villages" and said "we should be keeping the townlands seperate from the villages". You continued, "a possibile solution could be" to "create and add civil parish articles to the county templates". But after all that, I don't actually know what problem you identified. That is, I don't know why you think there is a problem with villages and townlands being together in the templates. As I said already, the templates are not in danger of being overwhelmed because the number of towns and villages is not very great. I think the templates are in excellent shape, barring a few older ones which use inappropriate language about unincorporated towns, an American usage that does not apply in Ireland. I can only find one example right now. — O'Dea 23:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I did say "points taken" which is meant to be me accepting your points and agreeing in the end to leave them as they are :-) Though the problem i was trying to identify was is there a need to have villages and townlands grouped together. Though on your point of villages and townlands sharing the same name, what about the towns that do also? On that basis Cookstown should be also added to the villages and townlands section even though it is a town and in the town section but it is also a townland. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to see why the question had been raised; I wasn't having a go at you; I hope you didn't feel that—just puzzled. Towns are easily distinguished as a separate category of entity by their large and concentrated populations and range of activities. — O'Dea 16:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I did feel like you were and now i don't :-) Cookstown despite its town status is still the name of a townland, which it is stated as being in the Cookstown article. If we are to include townlands alongside villages then we could alter towns to "Towns and townlands" to properly include them there also. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Anymore on this??? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the discussion had more or less concluded with, I did say "points taken" which is meant to be me accepting your points and agreeing in the end to leave them as they are, so I thought you had dropped your proposal with that leave them as they are comment. — O'Dea 20:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes i did, however did you not notice i did make another point afterwards that no-one decided to respond upon, i.e. what do we do about towns that are also townlands? And the proposal i made about that? So how do we deal with it? Mabuska ^(talk) 01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well how do we? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't. No problem exists. If a town is to be in a template, list it in the town section. If it has a dual existence as a townland, let its town status predominate as it does in reality. — O'Dea (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any townlands that are notable qua townland. The example given was Knockmore, but the article is about the mountain rather than the townland. (The cliff face it mentions is the boundary between the townland of Knock More and Buggan.) Lists of townlands are one thing, articles on individual townlands another. jnestorius^(talk) 22:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Just came upon this and believe that townlands are so important and really love the idea put forward by Mabuska. If we lose Townlands here where will they be kept? Bjmullan (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

O'Dea how does a problem not exist? We clearly state in the navbox "Villages and Townlands", however what about the articles that deal with both a town and a townland? I.e. once again Cookstown. Do we list it in both "Villages and Townlands" and "Towns" seeing as its a town and a townland? As we list townlands in the "Villages and Townlands" bit, how can we simply just ignore listing townlands that also just happen to be a town as you imply? A simple solution would be for consistency and to reduce redundancy "Towns and Townlands" along with "Villages and Townlands". Then again this whole issue wouldn't be if villages and townlands weren't listed together. We could simply provide a list of the county's townlands which can provide the wikilinks to any articles on them if they exist. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Cookstown the town is notable, Cookstown the townland is not. The urban area extends into the townlands of Coolnafranky, Coolreaghs, Gortnalowry, Tullagh, Sullanboy, and Monrush as well as Cookstown. jnestorius^(talk) 07:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, if a town is also a townland, it will appear in the Towns section of the template because that is its primary and best-known category. Since it appears as a town, then it is not necessary, and it would be redundant, to list it in townlands, too. This continues to look like an artificial "problem" to me for this reason. There is no cause for anxiety when you can put a town in its town category and then forget about it. I am very surprised to notice today that this topic is continuing. — O'Dea (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm considering adding the Presidents of Ireland to these infoboxes, as the President appoints the Taoiseach. However, I won't make those additions, without an idea of whether this would be acceptable. What's your (plural) opinon? GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The president does not belong in the taoiseach infobox because it is about the taoiseach, not the president. Extending your principle would see us including the taoiseach in all ministers' infoboxes because they were appointed by the taoiseach. The infobox should limit its scope to the person it concerns. — O'Dea (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Help from WikiProject Ireland contributors would be appreciated regarding a question about the name Mairead. It appears online as either Máiread or Mairéad. Encyclopedia Britannica Online and this book, for example, spell it the first way, with the diacritic on the "a." But the disambiguation page at Mairead spells it the second way, with the diacritic on the "e." I've been investing considerable time in Mairead Maguire lately, so I'll be grateful for help in finally resolving this issue.—Biosketch (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The accent goes on the e. — O'Dea (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so sure she uses the fada in her name. Several books ascribed to her use the spelling Mairead Corrigan Maguire (without any accent) RashersTierney (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, my language was misleading: it's only a small minority of sources that spell her name with the diacritic. In the two places where I've seen an image of her signature, it's Mairead Corrigan Maguire with no accent, and other than that it's most often Mairead Maguire, also with no fada. Thanks for the help.—Biosketch (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. If Corrigan in particular doesn't use the fada, that's fine. Is this a good place to request a move of Sean Connery to Seán Connery, or should I go to his Talk page? — O'Dea (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename four eponymous categories for Irish towns at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 24#Ambiguous_Irish_towns.

On the same page, a similar proposal for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 24#Category:Sligo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Following on from a discussion on the Dessie Ellis talkpage, it seems that the use of succession boxes for TDs in multi-member seats is highly problematic. In the case of Pearse Doherty, it's clear who he succeeded. However in cases like Dublin North West, where Fianna Fáil lost two seats and Sinn Féin and Labour gained one each, iIt's not possible in that case to say which FF candidate the Sinn Féin winner succeeded. There are different ways we can deal with this, we could

1) remove succession boxes across the board
2) change them so that we have multiple predecessors/successors
3) retain them in the limited situations where one TD clearly succeeds another i.e. by-election winners and situations where only one incumbent fails.

I'd like more input before I change any of these. Valenciano (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought that in STV, there is no such thing as a successor. Personally I'd go for option 2. Fmph (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Successor in STV is a subjective matter. Best avoided, I think. In a bye-election who was "replaced" can be quite easily determined, but the wider concept of "succession" is still tricky. I'd leave it out: (1). --RA (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a fourth alternative, which I suggest is the best solution. The succession box templates allow for multi-seat constituencies, by listing all representatives for a seat. For an example, see the 19th-century English MP Sir Adolphus Dalrymple, 2nd Baronet.

I'll apply the same thing to Dessie Ellis, so that editors can see what it would look like. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. See this expanded succession box for Dessie Ellis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good approach, but I suggest that the style of "Preceded by" and "Incombant" are not right. Would a better appraoch be to have a timeline of Dáil elections, so the left-hand box would give the returnees for 2007, the middle one for 2011 (with Ellis highlighted), and the right hand one be left blank or show the next set of returnees for a seat on a timeline in other instances. --RA (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think the headings are wrong? They work fine for thousands of other articles.

What you are proposing sounds less like a succession box than a timeslice of the TD lists for each constituency. What would it look like for Enda, who has been returned in about a hundred general elections? (OK, it's actually 11, but still lots). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

How would your solution look in the Enda Kenny article? Or, more tricky yet, someone like Richard Mulcahy? It looks good in the Dessie Ellis article, but I'm a bit concerned that it may not be coherent for some other cases. Warofdreams talk 12:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have done Enda Kenny-like cases for UK MPs; multi-seat constituencies where one seat has been held for many decades by one person. I'll try to dig out a good example. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think BHG's example works reasonably well. Is it proposed to do it for all TD succession boxes or only those whether succession is unclear as in D. Ellis. Also, should predecessor and successor for TDs, go in the officeholder infobox? Personally I think it clutters the infobox and should be left out. Snappy (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

@BHG 18:54, 27 March 2011 - I think the heading don't work so well in PRSTV for the reasons stated earlier in the thread: because PRSTV doesn't have a straight-forward "succession" of seats from one candidate to another.

A "timeslice" of the TD lists for each constituency is a good way of describing what I mean. Rather than focus on the candidate, the constituency could be described and the candidate place in the TDs returned for the constituency over time. --RA (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that PRSTV (or any other electroral system) makes any difference at all. The issue is multi-seat constituencies.

In the case of, for example, the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis before 1832, there were four seats. Plenty of Dail constituencies have four seats, and it makes no difference whether the winners were chosen by bloc vote, PRSTV, by reading the entrails of a turnip, or by systematic intimidation (as was common in England before the secret ballot). What matters is that in each case, more than one person is returned for a given seat at an election, and a mechanism exists for filling vacancies.

In a multi-seat constituency, the succession consists not of a one-to-one relationship, but of a group-group relationship. In Dublin NW the trio of Carey+Ahern+Shorthall was replaced by the trio of Shortall+Ellis+Lyons.

Where one MP/TD has persisted while others have come and gone, we can represent that quite simply by adding dates to the "with" parameters, as in Adolphus Dalrymple's tenure in Appleby or Welbore Ellis's lengthy tenure in several seats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

LOLs. You seem to be arguing very forcefully the same point that I am making. I think this is down to confusion that I caused. Looking at the Ellis page again, I think I must have read it wrong the first time around because this time it looks like what I was suggesting to do. Apologies for the confusion I caused.

I think what you are suggesting is the right approach. --RA (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! We may have taken the long way round, but we got there:) I'll do a few more TDs as an example. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added succession boxes to Richard Mulcahy, as an example. Bear in mind that this is one of the trickiest cases, not a typical one! Warofdreams talk 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite worked - it seems that the {{s-bef}} template can only list a maximum of five predecessors. I'm sure that could be changed, if there's agreement to use these templates here. Warofdreams talk 16:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of unreadable clutter to me. If you want to know who served with who and when, just go to the constituency article and look at the TDs table, e.g. Dublin South Central#TDs. Snappy (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with that. The Mulcahy one is just too long and cluttered and duplicates details in the constituency articles. Personally I'd either remove them altogether or simply have a box saying which constituencies they represented with the predecessor/successor boxes simply saying "incumbents." Valenciano (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposal to delete all "Members of Nth Dail" categories, as well as other Parliamentarians by term categories here. Snappy (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated WikiProject Kilkenny for deletion.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kilkenny, where your contributions will be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Iarnród Éireann stations in County Carlow, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. 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) 16:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations serving harbours and ports in Ireland, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. 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) 16:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is in dire need of attention. It needs more info, more sources, restructuring and a general cleanup. I thought I should point it out since I'm sure it'll be getting a lot of hits in the run-up to St Patrick's Day. It's also one of this project's "top importance" articles. ~Asarlaí 02:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bit late to start on it now with St. Paddy's day only a day away, but it should get more attention as it may require copy-editing. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the picture of the post box? If we include this why not images of Irish buses, phone boxes, police cars, ect?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

By Jasus, there's no mention of faction fighting.Red Hurley (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is being added to avoid edit conflicts with a very active discussion about the county leads, which I will comment on there. Mabuska, I do not see that you voted in the dramatic and contentious Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names which occurred in the second half of 2009. It was there that several editors who would have disagreed with your additions felt forced to abandon the Wikipedia experience. I know that I have curtailed editing in part in response to the wrongs that occurred there: terrible unjustified but pointy blocks, slipshod and cynical "moderation" and outright bigotry were all factors there. It sent a chill and severely damaged the view many had of Wikipedia as a viable forum for cooperation with editors with a strong UK position. I feel your timing in June 2010 and your now questioning why no one bothered to object when you added your lead sentences can be partly explained by the aftermath of that poll. Following the poll, there was an effort to reign in administrator-for-life status as a reality which was also treated as a laughable nuisance by some with the sysop bit turned on, and that further alienated fine and dedicated editors who, as we are now, would have objected to your wording and worked, as now, with you to revise it. That is my honest response to your wondering why the objections have only now surfaced. I did not notice because I wasn't watching due to apathy and resignation, and the same is likely true for others, in my view. Sswonk (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Never voted as i was never involved in it.

I think that is a poor excuse. There was plenty of (at times very heated) objections and disagreements to proposals and ideas by anyone involved from any camp in those 2010 discussions, so i don't know if that does really play a role in this at all. Also the naming of articles never once came into consideration, so why the whole discussion on it in 2009 would have an exact bearing on issues of clarification to prevent irredentist wording, interpretation of IMoS, and detail etc.

Seeing as the ledes and maps made mention of the island and state in them, the IMoS was being used as instructed and laid out.

Also despite the aggro at times between us in the 2010 discussions, we did collaborate together and there was co-operation in the end, so the 2009 discussion didn't severely damage it for all of us.

And just to clarify, and i don't mean to burst any conspiracy bubbles, my intentions in those 2010 discussions wasn't to plaster RoI unpiped everywhere, but to ensure that NI wasn't being depicted/stated/branded subversively as part of Ireland the state, especially as it belongs to a different state. I don't mind "Ireland" being used as a pipe for the state where it meets IMoS.

Mabuska ^(talk) 18:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What? Did you read what I wrote? Also, how is 'never voted as I was never involved' an "excuse"? You are questioning why these objections were not made in 2010, I explained that I didn't know about the decision process at that time and just discovered the whole series of edits had been made. That isn't an excuse, it's a statement of fact. Q:"Why don't you pee standing up?" A:"I'm a woman." Reply:"That's no excuse." I'm a man, by the way, but hope you get the point, mocking an honest answer is not helping your cause. I am posting a color blindness link above. Are you talking to me? Is this some kind of absurdism clinic I've stumbled into? I already said in response to Asarlaí that I am not into conspiracy chases, it is the resulting use of your edits by others as evidence of consensus that would be problematic. Sswonk (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes i did read what you wrote, and no i wasn't mocking you, there is no mocking or sarcasm in my above comment. Consider it a kind of absurdism clinic if you wish. Well i do have a pretty damn good excuse for not voting as i wasn't involved in it as i never knew about it or got involved generally in Ireland articles until 2010. Sorry for not being around for something i never had a single inclination was happening at the time and had no interest in at the time as i never knew it was happening.

If you haven't noticed, we are actually rediscussing the whole issue above again - openly and making suggestions. Instead of trying to give defenses for why there was a lack of objections maybe you can focus on the above reopened discussions on the issues? Surely that'd be more productive. It is still a pretty poor excuse, as its not hard for someone to do WP:BRD, and i've seen enough opposition from editors such as O Fenian etc. over the past year to the inclusion of RoI unpiped in places, to know that the 2009 discussion didn't quell any stomach to argue. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

another freaking (edit conflict) Noticed, and posted the penultimate comment there which Bastun don't like as I tend to see what he means, I was just parroting what you and Sarah had hashed out without RoI. RoI is the sticking point here. This is why The Vote ends up being relevant. Pausing to think about all this for a spell, like an hour or so. I am still swiggin the absurdity, need some coffee to gain my balance. Can't BRD what I never saw. Sswonk (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes i hate (edit conflict) as well lol. Whilst you didn't see its initial inclusion, you could maybe have raised the issue once you did notice it unless you only did notice it recently. Anyways i'd like us to focus on co-operating above rather than us argueing. Let any greivances between us be water under the bridge? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Peace. Sswonk (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 seems to have several issues with the county ledes. First things first, the overall general format for them was agreed last year as a stop gap measure whilst we took a break on the issue (which had dragged on and on and on), however as it worked that well and was very stable we just let it stay in place without bringing the issue back up. It also complies with IMoS as we are remarking about the country and island in the same paragraph and even with "island of Ireland" in it, the Republic still needs disambiguated as the island is being mentioned regardless.

The addition of "traditional" is a recent proposal that was adopted however, to help differentiate the fact the Republic doesn't consist of 26 counties, especially as Tipperary is split in two, and then there is no longer a County Dublin, but Fingal etc. The "traditional thirty-two counties" bit is thus a fair and realstiic description of them.

Though i do have to agree with Sarah777 in regards to the addition of the "admnistrative" counties bit, and i believe its my own fault on a misunderstanding of that latest agreement. Technically counties like County Galway are not the same as the Galway County Council, and the link provided takes it to an article that'd make the reader assume that it is. That is wrong and an error on my behalf which was later fully implmented across all the articles by a few other editors.

Rather we should say it was an administative county as they aren't one and the same. The wikilink would then take the reader to the article that'd show what replaced it. Or we could simply state what replaced it as an administrative county. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If we're starting a new discussion, in order to reach a new consensus on the intros to Irish counties, can people stop changing the current intro while the issue is under discussion. The current intro was reached after quite a few editors had a discussion last year. So to kick things off, each county council in (the Republic of) Ireland administers a county. There are two sides of the same coin, you can't have one without the other. So if Cork County Council administers County Cork, isn't County Cork an administrative county? In the Local Government Act, 2001, it states "2. — (1) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires— “administrative area” means an area which continues to stand established under section 10 for the purposes of local government and which is— (a) a county in the case of a county council". Snappy (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, we should scrap the pipe-linking of RoI, completely. For the time being, the country article is Republic of Ireland & we should show it as such. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "the country". The article about sovereign Ireland titled with a description, RoI. Sarah777 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that County Limerick is the "traditional" county. The area covered by Limerick County Council is not. So in an article titled "County Limerick" it is inaccurate to say that County Limerick is a traditional county and an administrative area. They are often (usually?) two different areas. Alas, the remarks by Gooday above increase my suspicion that some of the editors involved are looking for a formulation to introduce "RoI" (unpiped) into the "lede" rather than striving for a good, accurate, unambiguous and informative opening paragraph. Sarah777 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And before someone says that I'm striving to keep unpiped RoI out of the lede, yes, in the spirit of IMOS custom and practice I am. Unpiped RoI is only to be used when necessary for dab. That necessity can be avoided or occasioned by the way sentences are phrased. Sarah777 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Republic of Ireland unpiped was in the ledes of the county articles for a good 9 months with no problems at all, and that was before the recent agreement on adding the tags "traditional" and "administrative" to differentiate the counties. In fact if you check Sarah777, prior to the addition of "administrative" to those articles, they all stated "one of the twenty-six counties of the Republic of Ireland", though some were recently altered to include traditional as well due to the fact there aren't 26 counties in the RoI anymore other than the traditional ones.

In fact checking the versions prior to the addition of "twenty-six counties" last year, they made no mention of the RoI unpiped or not at all. So in effect they never stated what state they were part of, just that they were counties of Ireland. Just stating and linking to that is suspicious enough for me as we don't define exactly what Ireland we're defining. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If we mention the state and the island then IMoS means use of RoI unpiped. Even if we state "island of Ireland", we still need to state RoI unpiped otherwise it could confuse the reader. That is the IMoS. Though if we leave it altogether we could simple state "county of Ireland". Mabuska ^(talk) 19:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not bad, though how about the following with minor word tweaks:

County Limerick

County Limerick is one of the thirty-two traditional counties of Ireland. There are two local authority administrative areas that now cover the county, Limerick County Council and Limerick City Council. (Depending yadda yadda ya).

"Of" sounds better grammer wise for talking about an island IMO, and we should state "that now cover the county" as afterall it no longer is an administrative unit anymore. Me and Scorlaire, RA and co. agreed that using words for 32 was better for some reason, can't remember why but i think it looks good that way. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. That is a better wording. (Absolutely no sarcasm :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Just realised there is a problem. We need to state what state those councils belong to as it isn't made clear in it. Thus it means that as we mention the island then we have to use RoI unpiped. However i remember from the long arguement that the nationalist editors (term being used loosely just to illustrate my point) were adament that the 32 counties bit needed to be in the lede, and you just can't have it unqualified so you need to state they are the 32 counties of Ireland, might be better to state "island of Ireland". County intros are problematic as you can see. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good intros for counties among the twenty-six:

The articles were started and continue to be about one of the counties which existed well before partition. Their status as administrative divisions of the sovereign country is secondary to their historical importance in literature and science. The counties existed well before the republic and are the primary topic of the articles. The link from the word "administrative" goes to an article which explains in much detail the current legal status. It is unnecessary to politicize the lead sentences, the county's current position within a sovereign state is secondary to the subject. Sswonk (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, for the reason stated below. Counties belong to states, not islands. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated below, we are leaving out what state those councils belong to. Those proprosals require the state to be mentioned, and alongside the island that means use of unpiped RoI according to IMoS. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I need a break. Ireland is the name of the state. Dab when meaning the island, not the other way around. I am gone for a spell. Sswonk (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ireland is the name of the state, however your examples are referring to the island in context and wikilink. The island isn't the state, which i do know you know, so how do you wish to declare what state those councils belong to? If we just leave it for the reader to assume that they are part of Ireland (the state) as we mention Ireland (the island), then that is wrong as whats to stop a reader thus assuming that Ireland (the island) isn't the state? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

SSwonk, according to IMOS, Republic of Ireland (not island of Ireland) should be the disambiguator unless "the state forms a major component of the topic". ~Asarlaí 19:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

True. The island of is a rather current thing just to aid in the clarification. It isn't exactly needed everywhere, though it is in a couple of circumstances. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No consensus here

I seem to be having some navigation issues but it will come back to me.....

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 please desist. I have nothing against a formalised intro/lede so long as it isn't applied where it is inaccurate or misleading (you'll all agree) and also that it isn't used as cover to introduce the loathsome phrase "RoI" into a prominent unpiped position in dozens of articles (doubtless some misguided folk will disagree). Sarah777 (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I raised the issue up and above for you Sarah777, so can we please continue it there? Anyways the RoI unpiped was in the lede before the imposition of "administrative" counties. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, there appears to be a great number of articles which, over the past several months, have sprouted "Republic of Ireland" without being pipelinked. There appears to be a systematic process afoot.... --HighKing (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I suspect (not accusing any specific editor here, certainly not Mabuska, as I'd need to trawl through their records of the past 18 months). And such a co-ordinated insertion of pov is in blatant violation of Wiki "piping" arrangements as agreed over many long arguments at IMOS and project pages. Sarah777 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether that was sarcasm or not in reference to me, but ah well i'll assume it wasn't :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the lowest form of wit. Not guilty! Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I still prefer the articles Republic of Ireland & Ireland be moved to Ireland & Ireland (island). I just don't accept the 'pipe-link' stuff. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Sswonk (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Still with the pointless drive-by one-liners you'd sworn off making, GoodDay? You know there's a moratorium on discussing moves until the autumn. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop your growling. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are editors really suggesting there's a conspiracy to change every mention of the 26-county state to Republic of Ireland? Jaysus, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. As long as the wording follows the IMOS, everything's fine. ~Asarlaí 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to let others defend their own comments. I am not charging that there is an overt conspiracy, but surely a trend and one series of edits which "took liberties" on the twenty-six county articles in June of 2010. Those edits were being trumpeted as "consensus" and "stable" after Sarah777 recently sought to change them, even though they were done unilaterally and altered leads that had been in place for many years. Now above this section it appears that Mabuska and Sarah777 have started to come up with wording that eliminates the wrong and misleading terminology and the forcing of ROI into places it had previously been absent. Arguments for the need to disambiguate, when the subject of the article title is revisited after two years in the fall, would have pointed to the "growing" and "stable" use of the term in the county articles and other areas. Obviously there are strong objections to that, and all of us who object I think in one way or another mean to avoid having such support for a logical fallacy given by text in the county article leads. Even if we are bound not to argue the title, we can seek to stop efforts by others which shore up the perception of its correctness by introducing it where it hadn't been. No, I would not characterize it as a conspiracy goose chase, so no need to get emotional in other words laugh or cry. The issue is being addressed, and that is good. Sswonk (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska's wording of 9th April above looks fine to me apart from one glaring omission. It doesn't mention the state at all. Counties belong to states, not islands or other geographical features. Are we to have some special accommodation for Irish counties just to appease those opposed to seeing "Republic of Ireland" anywhere? See, for example: Penobscot_County, Surrey, York County, Ontario. All mention the state of which they are a part. I propose instead "County Limerick is one of the twenty-six traditional counties of Ireland. There are two local authority administrative areas that now cover the county, Limerick County Council and Limerick City Council." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bastun, "appease" isn't a very collaborative usage - however I don't have an issue with your wording. That would mean articles on counties in the sundered six would have to start "County Fermanagh is one of the six traditionalcounties of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. If we must mention the state in the case of sovereign Ireland then clearly we must mention the state of which NI forms a part. Sarah777 (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Sswonk - What led to the June 2010 edit is detailed by myself as the top of the preceding section - it was a stop-gap measure while we took a break on the issue. No-one argued against it and it just ended up remaining with no objections until recently when we started adding "administrative" into it.

@ Sarah777 - NI is a region that the counties can be attributed to. If we have to add UK to the end of it then we would have to add it to every NI settlement article to state "in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom". We would also have to do the same to all the English, Welsh, and Scottish counties and settlements for consistency. As i just pointed up above, we actually do need to declare the state those councils belong to as it isn't made clear and as we mention the island we have to use RoI unpiped. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept that it is OK to have articles using subsets of the UK while not mentioning the state they are in but we must mention the state a southern Irish county is in! Maybe we do need to add 'UK' to all articles about places in the UK? If not; then ditto for places in sovereign Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am getting tired of the pretense that NI is a country and a state in with the same sovereign status as Ireland. It is not. Period. This pretence leads to the constant need to diminish Ireland by referring to it using a dab. Sarah777 (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

We aren't declaring it as state or country in the same sovereign status as the Republic, we are just declaring the region it belongs to. If you want to change all those intros then you will have to raise it at all the proper wikiprojects and i don't know if you could get consensus for such a change. However other places in other counties don't always state the sovereign state. Cahokia doesn't state USA but just Illinois. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Sarah on this, it is a logical fallacy (begging the question) to assume that disambiguation is required for Ireland. Sswonk (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mabuska. If we're going to mention the island and the 26-county state, then we must use Republic of Ireland. That's in line with IMOS. ~Asarlaí 18:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no way to avoid the use of RoI unpiped in the lede. Why? Well there are those that strongely wished the lede to state "thirty-two counties of Ireland" (i'm not one), as that refers to the island then any mention of the state has to be unpiped. Secondly Bastun's proposal is good however we can't just state the councils without stating what state they belong to. Otherwise it would give the impression that the island linked too and the councils are all part of the same state which is erroneous as there is the UK bit of the island. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I should point-out...once {{Infobox place Ireland}} is deleted (which will happen soon), the new infoboxes will show the state. For the 26 counties it will say [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. See here for an example. ~Asarlaí 18:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think the Ireland infobox is far better looking than the generic one that'll replace it, but at least we'll finally get the state mentioned. In regards to that, does having the state declared in it have any bearing on the lede? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention a county's pre-partition history in the intros? GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Because a few editors wanted to include the all-Ireland relationship of the traditional thirty-two counties that is still used by the GAA, traditionalists, and by those labelled last year as "irredentists". It is a common viewpoint in Ireland, so it does merit inclusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it just muddies the intro waters. But since it's not a problem for others, I'll go along with its inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head, GoodDay. If counties belong to states, then the intro should state this. All other uses including GAA, etc, can be moved further down to the appropriate paragraph. --HighKing (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental differences of opinion are not foundations for what would otherwise pass for consensus. Taking a purely clinical view, if an article begins Mullingar is the county town of County Westmeath in Ireland, then the corresponding article about the larger administrative district can begin County Westmeath is one of the administrative counties of Ireland and one of the thirty-two traditional counties of the island of Ireland. This is where the difference of opinion lies, and I am not prepared to continue on the current treadmill of arguing what aspect...for...which...of...IMOS applies. Gets loopy and unnecessarily analytical. Should be easy. Is the article about the county that was created in 1543 or not? If so, then why is it even necessary to go into mentioning the administrative part first, as was apparently hashed out in the 2010 discussion I missed? Those are the questions I can not answer. In my view, application of IMOS is to be avoided by writing good leads, not leads crafted due to the existence of IMOS. The subject of Westmeath can be artfully introduced without needing to immediately use the contentious, ooops-looks-like-we-need-IMOS-logic-tree-test unofficial name phrase Republic of Ireland for the country. My hope is that the consensus, if one is possible, can find that sort of result. Sswonk (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Users Mabuska and Asarlaí are correct: there is no way to avoid the use of RoI unpiped in the lead. Any attempt to avoid it will mortally offend 1 camp who will over-compensate elsewhere in the lead to "balance" the error. The consensus - and that's what it was de facto - was the best that was available and that was the least offensive to both camps. Once Mabuska's correction above (for Limerick city council & LCC), it will be even better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that, since I just piped the existing lead above your comment and it is not controversial in my view. Who are the camps, if you don't mind? I mean, seriously I am an American and don't know if you mean unionist/republican or some style maven camp I missed. Sswonk (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for dropping the thirty-two counties bit. Was never for its inclusion in the first place, but i compromised for the greater good at the time. However Sswonk you appear to misunderstand the IMoS. "island of" is not a disambiguator that distinguishes the island from the state. The IMoS clearly states that when the island and state are being mentioned together the state should be declared ad "Republic of Ireland". Your suggestion is against IMoS and we should always go by the IMoS. "island of" does not overrule IMoS, and i see no need to overule it - me, Laurel, Snappy and Asarlai don't agree on political matters, but we do agree with implementing the IMoS. You may be American, but that many claim to be Irish, you might be too? Especially if you particpate in Irish affairs ;-)

If we drop the thirty-two counties bit we wouldn't have the problem at all anyways as we don't need to mention the island then - and then again if you want it to refer to it historically then the Ireland when those counties was created was a state not just an island, so technically we should of stated they were one of the thirty-two counties of the former state that was Ireland (pre-1921) rather than the island. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay and others replied as well, this is where I intended to place the comment until (edit conflict) raised its head! Comment begins here: Well I am not going out on a limb to trust Laurel, Snappy and Asarlaí along with you. I am using my real name, too, and deal all the time with whatever avatar, icon, character or clever phrase people want to call themselves here: that in itself makes this weird. So Swonk is German, but I have plenty of Irish both through family and environment: Boston, South Shore, friendships that go back many years, and other aspects. Trust me, religion is totally not a factor with me, there are plenty of people, of both religions, that I agree and disagree with about many, many things. Not going out on a limb, I already trust the four of you along with Sarah and RA and Bastun and GoodDay and the rest of the crew, everyone here is genuinely interested in educating people about Ireland and writing about Ireland, or at least in my case mapping, discussing it as well. Everyone is also learning a thing or two. So I ask you to trust me: in this country, in Singapore, in Kenya, in Brasil, in Japan, when people say "Ireland" they mean the place with the Taoiseach and the counties called Mayo and Kildare, the place with the harp. The country. Northern Ireland is known about, but Ireland is what we call the current sovereign nation, and also the place where Joyce and Shaw worked, etc. It is hands down by a very weighty margin the primary topic meant by the word "Ireland". That IMOS insists on reducing the nation to a disambiguation question, this word which all but those that live on the big islands northwest of France seem to agree does not need disambiguation, is a bit unfathomable. This is what Sarah gets so impatient about, and I saw her get (figuratively) slapped silly and blocked repeatedly by Wikipedians when all that was happening was her telling of the truth. It looked to an outsider like me that she was Galileo and Wikipedia, heavily influenced by UK voices, was the Vatican. Now, it appears that I am telling the truth and warnings about it 'never flying, can't happen, IMOS is best' are arising again. I contend that IMOS be damned if it makes for stilted, tortured logic that produces improbably ugly sentences that are only meaningful to the few that argue here over their content. I ask that you trust my judgment and that I am not pushing Sinn Féin for profit or anything of the sort. I want people to stop wasting time calling the country by anything other than what it is called everywhere else in the world, Ireland. Sswonk (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

How does any of that contribute to the progression of this issue? That may all as well be, but Wikipedia's content isn't built on trust alone. Its built on agreement and consensus, and the IMoS is one of those consensus measures.

Hell i hate the fact Wikipedia is forced to state Londonderry as "Derry" despite the fact it has no official status whatsoever in the country it belongs to. Republic of Ireland however is an official description of the Irish state as defined by the Irish government itself - its not a British invented term, and it is a useful disambigutor when one is needed to distinguish it from the island and the IMoS is an agreed measure that uses it for disambiguation. I don't like the Londonderry/Derry consensus as its factually flawed to the highest degrees, however i abide by it as its whats agreed to even tough i wasn't involved in that discussion.

Let's tease this out, because it annoys me to see the line "is an official description" as an excuse to use the term willy-nilly. Under what conditions is it OK to use a description instead of a name? Also, you say it's not a British invented term. But you fail to notice the enormous difference between the Irish act passed in 1948 defining the term as a description, and the 1949 UK act that defines the term as a name. Usually descriptions are used *after* a name, in order to disambiguate. For example, Tom, the lawyer - the description "the lawyer" disambiguates one Tom from another - say Tom, the baker. In the same way, Ireland, the Republic, would disambiguate from Ireland, the island. On the other hand, using Republic of Ireland is not using it as a "description", but using it as a name. Just like the UK legislation. That, in a nutshell, is the objection to the manner in which the term is used. Why can't the disambiguation be simply "Ireland, the Republic," and "Ireland, the island,"??? --HighKing (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is original research and personal opinion, and no matter how correct it may be, its still that and Wikipedia's content isn't based on that. The IMoS is an agreement at the moment between differing opinions. Its not perfect, but its not the only example of imperfection on Wikipedia. How this has gone from altering the lede of an intro to argueing for the abandonment of the IMoS altogether is beyond me. If you want to advocate getting rid of the current agreement can you not wait until the current shelf-life on it expires sometime this year or whenever it is? I think we should focus on the issue at hand - valid statements have been raised by me and a couple of others in regards to the latering of the lede - can you focus and comment on them as well? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On a minor point: Ireland the sovereign nation was not "the place where Joyce and Shaw worked". James Joyce's early works were produced when Dublin was still part of the United Kingdom, and thereafter he worked in France and Switzerland. George Bernard Shaw produced most of his works in England. Opera hat (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see below, a brief answer. You are correct, I was careless. Sswonk (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk, as Mabuska said, your comment is original research and personal opinion. You can't prove that when people outside Ireland say "Ireland" they always mean the 26-county state. I think that's very unlikely. Furthermore, I think I should point-out some inaccuracies in your statement. Firstly, the 26-county state is not a nation—that's what we would call a partitionist POV. Secondly, altho you could call the 26-county state a country, that term is ambiguous—the island is also a country. Thirdly, Republic of Ireland is not a British term—it was introduced in 1948 by an act of the Oireachtas. ~Asarlaí 01:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The island is not a country. It's an island. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's your own POV. The term country can mean more than one thing. ~Asarlaí 01:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Things are confusing enough, without calling the island a country. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have written multiple brilliant responses, all absolute truth, wiki gospel of the highest form, and have been (edit conflict)'ed to death for my efforts. I will try a short summary and maybe come back later with details. Opera hat: right, should be both gentlemen were Irish, their land is the harp place I mentioned. Worked was not absolutely correct, especially for Shaw. Let us say we are not so much now separated by common language. Mabuska, I have too much to retort, that will be basically my final thought for the moment, just realize it ends "if IMOS was followed and no one was satisfied, then challenge IMOS" Derry/Lodonderry is similar, yes. Asarlaí: your thoughts were some of RA's thoughts too, back in IECOLL statements before The Vote. I want to get across some points about it, but like Mabuska, I can't seem to right now, it will be another (edit conflict) fest. I think it is very likely, what else is there to say? Of course it is OR. Just read papers and sites from around the world, and tell me how often RoI is used when talking about the country. Look at diplomatic venues, sporting events. Ireland, my friend, is what is used. The other points again I will need to study. Sswonk (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of argueing things that aren't the exact issue at hand which is improving the county article ledes, how about you focus on that? The whole IMoS issue isn't for here and has its own place when its shelf-life expires. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For a pre-1921 political term, we'd have to use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I could never see that gaining widespread consensus even if piped. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It's simple, we need a baseline page like Historic counties of Wales, with the boundaries just before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898. No need to wrangle over later local or national boundary changes. A tweak to Counties of Ireland would do it, maybe.Red Hurley (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, we need to put the counties in question into context. It would help greatly i believe. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a stickler on this, but Tipperary, once again is the exception to the rule. You can't use 1898 as the baseline in the case of Tipperary. As the article on North Tipperary points out, "The area also had a separate existence as a judicial county following the establishment of assize courts in 1838." So technically, the traditional county of Tipperary had disapeared for all local government purposes by 1838. And what is a county if not a unit of local government? Its borders, set at the time of its shiring by the Normans, had no purpose other than to delimit scheres of influence for the ruling barons. To say that the county gave up its legal local government responsibilities but that the ghost of the county remained on in some delimited geographic sense, is just nonsense. Tipperary exists in the popular imagination, in song, in folklore, in the GAA and in "Failte Ireland" marketing: it has no legal existance. DEspite al that, I would actually favour a a baseline page like Historic counties of Wales, with the boundaries just before 1838. It's intersting though, that that only gives you a window of 213 years in which the 32 traditional coounties can be said to have had a full undisputed existance as Wicklow was only shired in 1625. All this fuss over a 213 year window? North Tiperary alone has existed for nearly that length of time yet some editors refuse to recognise that fact, preferring to wallow in rose tinted imaginings of a county system that existed from time immemorial, pure, pristine, unchanging until an unfortunate interregnum in 1921. Didn't happen - time to get over it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, however can we please, please, please sort out the current issue at hand rather than branching it out into other facets? I gave proposals below, please comment on them. Once we get this issue sorted, which really is the catalyst afterall, we can focus on how to improve the clarity of the counties historical context. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on track

Adding a sub-section header here to help drag this back to the immediate issue - county intros. Heres a few proposals:

1. The first one is no go pure and simply because we declare the island and then mention administrative divisions without attributing a state to them. That would mean adding in the state which due to the ffact the island is mentioned means we HAVE to use Republic of Ireland unpiped.
2. The second one is how the first one would have to be worded to mention the state.
3. The third one leaves out the island statement meaning that the state can be mentioned without being unpiped. Note that the "county of Ireland" is piped to RoI not the island.
4. The fourth one is simply a more expanded version of number 2.

If you want to avoid use of Republic of Ireland that badly then idea 3 would have to be the way to go. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

May I add a fifth option?

Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The fifth option is against the IMOS - as it's mentioning the state and the island, then per IMOS 'Republic of Ireland' would need to be used. Now, while that's fine with me, and, apparently, the Irish government (the term 'RoI' was used all over the CSO's census form I filled out last night), option 3 avoids the problem entirely. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We should adopt 4, as our solution. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurels suggestion calls for the IMoS to come into play. Option 3 as i said if the RoI unpiped is such a huge deal would be the best option as it avoids the issue altogther. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 3 is my second choice. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I could support any of options 1, 3 or 5. Utterly reject options 2 and 4. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not adding more than a vote, and then some work for someone else. It appears 3 is fine, and if possible would someone do a 'single' county, like Kildare, Sligo etc. with an example (no dual jurisdiction, in other words)? I guess County Dublin would be tricky. I would rather see just the two, Limerick and some other, though, as examples. I am glad everyone is tending to agree and all that. Great! Sswonk (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out the word "former" from the Kildare examples as it still is an administrative county. Actually, as it's also a "traditional" county, the word "administrative" could probably be removed too? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it really is "former". The 1898 Act establised the administrative county. The 2001 Act abolished it and replaced it with a local government county that, in the case of Kildare, just happens to occupy the same territory. In other cases, such as Limerick, there is a huge difference between the former administrative counties and their successor entities for local government purposes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mabuska for putting those choices together. I would favour option 3. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Kinda shocked that by that response lol, but thanks. The issue was meant to be reraised a few months after the break - a good 9 months have passed since the break as no-one bothered to start it again. I re-added the "former" into the Kildare county examples as as Laurel pointed out - they are former, with new adminstrative units governing the area. I also added a note to option 3 to make it clear about the brackets.

I also altered the rewording of the Kildare county council example in option 4. It doesn't state anything different but i think it reads better in the case of single councils. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whadya know, (edit conflict)! If smart folks like us could finally kick out this maddening forum system and replace it with a modern, easily editable version, the world would be a better place.
I am repeating the 3 of my choice stated above and listing it here in bold, this sentence can stand as my official vote. In reviewing the articles and choices, it appears that removing reference to "traditional" was the trick. Now, this was the thrust of Mabuska's "So what exactly is a traditional county of Ireland?" question from 2010. The words "historical" or "traditional" were being used from, or else in reference to, the very nice article: Counties of Ireland. That is an admirable article, which has an imagemap navigational map which Sarah, RA and I worked to present, and also good prose and a nice table with many coat of arms images. What happens to that article? How is it logically and structurally related to the articles the table within it points to, since reference to it is now removed from the leads of the county articles? Do the county articles which get this new lead now cease to be about the areas defined by the Counties of Ireland map and article? I think this is probably going to be seen as a trivial point, that the "traditional" aspect will be mentioned further down in each county article, etc. but then does that mention need to be discussed here as well? I may be making too much of this, I am just seeing the connection being broken to a degree by our work on the leads. Sswonk (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just got an (edit conflict) myself. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i advocated its removal then as Asarlai was intent on adding it in, and we had general agreement to remove it. However a later discussion saw me proposing it as a solution to the problem of the current and older counties and it was accepted. "Traditional" was favoured and agreed as a more suitable term than "historical" as traditional implies continued existence in some form (GAA county teams, etc.) whilst historical tends to imply it no longer exists at all in any regards.

On what happens that article, i think it is related to the issue below of the Counties of Ireland template. Though the article itself is still sound, and details both kinds of counties, though a little re-working possibly could make it even better in regards to traditional and current counties. Or we could rename it "Traditional counties of Ireland" if you wish, as we already have an article on the local administartive units of the RoI. However how is it not referred to in the examples above? The "county/counties" bit is wikilinked to the Counties of Ireland article. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Scratch reference removed, not thinking about the link but obviously you are right. I meant the removal of the word "traditional", which of course is the subject of that article. I think we are just replacing "traditional" with "former administrative"? Sswonk (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point now. Surely the Counties of Ireland explains it well enough anyways that we don't have to explicitly declare it in the ledes of these articles? After all they didn't contain "traditional" for most of their history. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the template Template:Local administrative units of Ireland. This covers all the first tier of local government entities created by the 2001 Act. It excludes the second tier entities - town councils. It also excludes Northern Ireland as they use districts for their first tier of local govt. So this vclears the way for the Counties of Ireland template to be re-named to "Traditional Counties of Ireland" while also removing the problematic City Councils from the template. By way of example, I've inserted it to the two Tipperary local govt articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I am not saying it needs to be in the leads, but just musing over whether the articles mention of the traditional aspect needs to be formalized, that is standardized during this discussion. Sswonk (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be absent for several hours, this question is very minor I think. I don't think the results here should prompt a rename of the article Counties of Ireland, but I do see some minor issues regarding navigation, which do not necessarily need to be hashed out now. The question did surface in my mind, that is when does the word "traditional" get used in each individual county article within the body below the lead, if at all. No worries, again just pondering a bit. Sswonk (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

So we've no objections to option 3, and several people in favour? Progress! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

None so far. We could of got this progress and end result last time but there was an insistence from several editors to include "thirty-two counties of Ireland" in the lede. That meant that any mention of the state had to be unpiped.

@Sswonk - its not a problem at the moment and would be very minor, so we can blissgully ignore it for now :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 15:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Which editors wanted "32 counties of Ireland" included? We should probably inform them of this discussion. --HighKing (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing how active those editors where especially in regards to this WikiProject i'm surprised they haven't chimed in already - maybe they no longer care, maybe they do. However RA seems to appear for a tiny bit and disappear for longer bits. Scolaire on the other hand is active (in a slower fashion than they were) going by their contributions. Dmcq was also heavily involved in the discussion though can't remember what way he swung on it but his opinion is valid too. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I had intended to raise a new section for this issue, but I might as well throw it into the melting pot here and give it a stir. The Template:Counties of Ireland was altered by me in a small way. A part of the footnote used to read: " Italics denote non-administrative counties. Brackets denote eponymous cities or non-traditional counties. ^† denotes counties of Northern Ireland ". I felt that that gave readers the impression that certain cities were only listed because, by co-incidence, they happened to share a name with a county. This is false. Those cities were there because they happen to have "xxx City Council" status. This status is equivalent to "YYY County Council" status in Law. To non Irish editors, what this means is that they could be viewed as counties in all but name. So to denigrate their status by saying that they are only present because they happen to share a name with an eponymous city is just wrong. Other cities of Ireland share a name with their surrounding county, but crucially, they do not have the first tier status of "YYY City Council". Kilkenny city is the prime example - it's a city but not a city council. For this reason, Kilkenny City is not a member of the template as it only occupies the second tier of local government - "town council". For this reason, I changed the wording to: " Italics denote non-administrative counties. Brackets denote eponymous cities with councils that have legal equality to county councils or non-traditional, administrative counties. ^† denotes counties of Northern Ireland". User BHG reverted it supplying the rationale "This tempate is about geography, not local govt status". I think that this is wrong. Is Fingal not geographic? Does it occupy some fifth dimension? Is Limerick City Council not geographic? Has its boundaries not been fixed? Or does it too occupy some fifth dimension? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This might be better in its own section so added a section header. Yes they are geographic locations so BHG's reasons for reverting aren't very strong. Fingal and the rest of the current county and city councils now have the position as the now defunct former administrative counties that we term "traditional". What gives traditional (it really is the best word to use as it doesn't upset those who don't accept that they are former and historical administrative units) more credence and priority than present goegraphic administrative units?

If anything we should rename the template box's header to "Traditional counties of Ireland" due to the fact none of them now have any official administrative purpose in either NI or the RoI and are thus redundant entities in official status - but due to being used by the GAA and some other things, the word traditional allows for them to be implied as former but still in use.

Also why should we organise them by province instead of state/region? Are we detailing the redundant historical land divisions of the former state of Ireland as part of the UK, or the present system as part of the RoI and NI? I think the whole issue revolves around the fact its not made clear the context of the counties. Do we adhere to the style used by the GAA and others or the style used by the administrations of the RoI and NI? The title of the template may hold the key. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact Template_talk:Counties_of_Ireland shows that the box's title and the provinces issue was raised as far back as 2005 and 2006. Even as far back as December 2006 a couple of editors used the term "traditional counties" so it's not entirely new as of last year :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 23:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the consensus on county leads, I can support the template change of name suggestion to "Traditional counties of Ireland" as long as the footnotes make it clear that new local government entities sit alongside or within their former borders. No suggestion should be allowed that these local government entities (of the first tier) are not geographic. Fingal occupies a fixed geographic space. So does Limerick City Council. The same rationale does not apply to NI as the modern districts are a complete break from the traditional counties and so the template need not name the districts (for spurious equivalence). "Traditional" aslo permits the continuance of the provincial sub-categorisation. Otherwise that too would have to go to be replaced by a state sub-division. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If we state "Traditional counties of Ireland" then there is no need for mentioning the new ones. We could however create a new template (or add to this one) detailing the current administrative units, and as they now virtually all have their own articles we could wikilink to them thus meaning we are avoiding a lot of the redundancy that would otherwise occur. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

True. That's a far better plan. Avoids al sorts of contentious wrangling. Leave the current template for the exclusive use of the "Traditional counties of Ireland" and create a new template for "Local administrative units of the Republic of Ireland".

The titling of a new template would be contentious. A new template would be exclusive to those current units articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Copying this from above: "I went ahead and created the template Template:Local administrative units of Ireland. This covers all the first tier of local government entities created by the 2001 Act. It excludes the second tier entities - town councils. It also excludes Northern Ireland as they use districts for their first tier of local govt. So this vclears the way for the Counties of Ireland template to be re-named to "Traditional Counties of Ireland" while also removing the problematic City Councils from the template. By way of example, I've inserted it to the two Tipperary local govt articles.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

user: Sswonk brought up an interesting topic at the talk page of user:Sarah777 involving the location maps of Ireland which were all changed last year. They all use the same description "The island of Ireland, showing international border between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, traditional provinces, traditional counties, and local authority areas in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland." I for one do not agree with these description and propose that they are all changed. For a start how can you have an international border between a sovereign state and a province? I suggest that they are changed to "County XXXX highlighted on an outline map of Ireland." as per the maps that they replaced. Bjmullan (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Could I be very lazy and ask you to post an example of the options here? I know I wasn't too keen on the old version and I don't much like the new one either - maybe Sswonk with his good eye for nice maps could suggest a version? Sarah777 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I raised the issue of the map descriptions to point out the series of edits, shown here, on 18 June 2010. The latest maps are actually from 19 July 2010, and use the windier description that now stands. So, for ease of use, here are four descriptions of four types of map for County Wexford used since 2004, in order, oldest to newest:

Certainly there are other options available to us as well, those are the descriptions that were used at the time of upload. My main point in mentioning this was that the latest description is written in a way that coincides with the use of ROI in the article leads. Sswonk (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The descriptions should be simple. "County X highlighted on a map of Ireland" is fine. ~Asarlaí 02:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The descriptions are fine - it's the flat pink/green combo is ugly. Could we have a topographical map with maybe different shades of green each side of the border then the county in question highlighted in topographical yellow? Something with a bit of style? Sarah777 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I did notice one of the golfers at the Masters yesterday had a pink shirt and green trousers - utterly naff. Sarah777 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 those maps are the result of a very lenghty discussion and the colours settled for where what was agreed, and they don't look ugly. They actually do look good, and far better than the very pale and sealess maps that was there beforehand. Colour-wise i preferred something more along the Wikipedia conventions on map colours, however in the end that was what was agreed to.

So are you guys seriously saying that the current description at File:Island_of_Ireland_location_map_Wexford.svg is inaccurate and wrong?? The map shows exactly what is being described. However if you check this edit at the base image for all the current county maps i created from File:Island_of_Ireland_location_map.svg, the exact same description as the base image which was inserted by Rannpháirtí anaithnid was copied over.

No-one objected to the descriptions at the time so you can't pretend there was no agreement for it for if there was disagreement it wasn't voiced at the time. Also as we are depicting NI's counties in the map, when we state Ireland is is best used in reference to the island, otherwise it could imply they are part Ireland the state.

@ Bjmullan, it is an international border, though we could simply state the United Kingdom instead. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Steady on. I am not saying they are inaccurate or wrong. I said I don't like the appearance! Nor am I disputing they were agreed upon; that doesn't mean I have to like the combo of pink and green on a flat background. As for the northern side of the border I am increasingly coming to the view that we should simply label it "UK". When they vote to become part of Ireland or for independence then we won't be forced to keep pretending they are here on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

@Mabuska I can't remember a discussion about what the actual wording to go with the images (perhaps you could point me to it?). I would also strongly oppose using the term UK (when more the half of it isn't in the image). I would support "County X highlighted on a map of Ireland" as per Asarlai. Bjmullan (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

@Sarah777 - My comment on the description was in reference to everyone but you as i did read what you said. I don't mind changing it to United Kingdom, we aren't declaring anywhere that we're stating sovereign states or countrys anyways.

@Bjmullan - I never said there was a discussion or agreement on the wording of the maps, but the shape and colour of the actual map. But Asarlai who was involved in the map issue and RA never raised any complaints as did no-one else involved. Though why would RA complain when it was HIS description? In fact to be honest, i don't even know if i actually added them in or not - when uploading the images and declaring there derivative work, it may have just copied the description over, i don't know or can;t remember. Though i do think it is glaringly missing out the name of the county. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the description in this case could be revised and standardised across the maps to read "Map showing County EIX highlighted dark green within Ireland, with Northern Ireland colored pink." and "County NIX highlighted dark red within Northern Ireland." I was not directly aware that RA had written the description but did suspect that, just didn't dig that far back. In any event, Mabuska you left it intact and since you are the uploader it became at that time your description of the maps as well. Did colorblindness play into the choice of colors at all? If not, it should be considered. Sswonk (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I made it clear the colours are not my choice. They were the result of a very very lengthy discussion involving several editors. Not my first choice, but hey it was what was agreed to. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk, that wording reads fine to me. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for altering the description? There is a mixed bag of views on it. Though your first suggestion Sswonk isn't bad as it ensures that NI is distinguished from the rest of Ireland (the state). Mabuska ^(talk) 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Aside: this is a site which will display a page using a variety of color blindness filters: [1]. The site is very slow, a couple of minutes to display on broadband, speedtest.net says I am getting 14.58Mbps to Tampa from Boston so it is the site, not the connection. Also, it drops the CSS. Still, interesting to see the page in a variety of color blind ways. I think it passes that test at any rate. As for the description, I don't know, why don't you type out what you think is should be, or should it stay as is, etc.? Sswonk (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The description as it is, as i have already stated, suits the base map best. Whilst there is no clear agreement for changing the description for the county specific maps, i agree we need to declare the county in it. I also already stated that your first suggestion isn't bad for the reason given above. I could go along with it, though it might be better stating "United Kingdom in pink" as Scotland (and Wales should be but RA left it out for some reason) as we don't want to classify Scotland as being part of NI :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 19:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the map (type and colour) emerged as the best (or least worst) in a VERY long debate. It has explicit concensus. Agree that it was an overesight of the description not too have explicitly mentioned the county name. Also, "United Kingdom in pink" will probably cause the least offence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Less confusion as well seeing as Scotland is also pink, and if we fix the maps to actually include those portions of Wales that RA omitted for some reason then it'd be pink also. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Map proposals

There isn't any real agreement on whether or not the descriptions of the county maps need altered at all, however it can be trimmed and still get the most basic information out - its not contentious. The full description, does suit the base map best.

Colour wise, i'd hate to re-raise this issue as it was a hell of a long, tiresome debate last time. However if needs be then needs be. The description could also be affected by any changes. Heres a few ideas/proposals to chew on:

1. Keep the same, using the colours that were essentially used on the older maps.
2. Use colours that adhere to Wikipedia map conventions (i tried that and failed), such as orange and grey etc.
3. Focus the RoI map solely on RoI adminstration units, blanking out NI and the rest of the UK so that the focus is solely on the RoI rather than including the neighbouring state.
4. Focus the RoI map solely on RoI administration units, and grey blanking the UK out, however maintain NI's county borders to show the all-Ireland dimension/history of Irish counties.

As a side-note, what colour changes happen here, will also affect the NI county maps. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please please please let's not open that old wound. I vote for no. 1. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for change at the moment, just statements by one or editors about the colours. Whatever way the voting here goes will show if there is a broad disagreement with the current colours or not. I would prefer we go with option 1, yet if it is broadly disagreed with showing there is no longer a consensus for it i'd go for option 3 or 4. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure Mabuska why you have introduced colour into the discussion. This is not about colour but about the description for the new maps, let's keep it there and let's try and keep the descriptions simple. Bjmullan (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That could be my fault. I mentioned in response to a question that I didn't like the colours. Which I don't. Regarding description - I'd favour anything that avoids referring to sovereign Ireland as "the RoI"; even if it means referring to the occupied territory as "the UK". Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Now now can we not call it by its real name Sarah777? Can't be occupied if the majority want it. ;-) Still yes the colour issue Bjmullan if you read everything was brought up by Sarah777. If you read the start of this section you will notice i make mention of changing the description - however what changes are made to the maps may affect the description to a degree. Though why a topographical map? Would that not make showing county borders and highlighting and delighting colours difficult? Is that kind of map not better for the Ireland article? No other map for counties or other political entities makes use of topographical maps so there is no precedent for it. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You know it was deliberately created to manufacture a majority. Using that argument you could slice every country in Africa and Europe into bits and pieces and claim "democracy". The sundered six are occupied; the Irish trapped in the area are merely saying that at this time we think it best to accept what we have. As for topographical precedent you do realise that humanity separated from the chimps by doing unprecedented things.

Let Irl Proj separate itself from the Wikichimps. Be a leader not a follower! Innovate, not imitate. Sarah777 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That topographical map looks awful, as for WikiChimps, I suppose it takes one to know one. Snappy (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't know - but I'll take your word for it. Sarah777 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A topographical map is a non-starter. A political map is required. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Agree with GoodDay - a politial, or at least non-topographical - map is required. 2. Sarah, can you please leave your talk of "occupied six" and "sundered six" off project and non-user pages? You're entitled to your views, of course, but this page isn't the place for them. Lest you forget, 94% of people in Ireland voted in favour of the Good Friday Agreement, as did 71% in Northern Ireland (where the DUP were the main opponents, not Sinn Féin or the SDLP. Only a tiny 3% voted against it down here. That is democracy. The alternative is events like that of the weekend before last. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A political map overlaying a topographical underlay is what I proposed. Not just a topographical map. Note the word "base". Regarding your blather on "democracy"; we voted to live with the occupation as the best solution. Still an occupation. Even I voted for the GFA as the best deal we could get in the face of a brutal occupation and the abandonment of our northern brethren by the spineless Southern State. We can see this playing out in the contrast between the Icelandic reaction to paying foreign bankers gambling debts and reaction of the current Blueshirt Regime who can't crawl low enough trying to please for the Germans/French. They were "democratically" elected to overturn FF policy by a landslide and within a week were not only implementing the FF policy they opposed in order to get elected. They also "democratically" voted to deny us an Icelandic - style referendum on the bleeding of Eire to pay for German bankers. Don't give me any pathetic lectures about "democracy".

And: Sarah, can you please leave your talk of "occupied six" and "sundered six" off project and non-user pages?

Answer: No. They are sundered and occupied. The truth will set you free Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should use the kind of map proposed here by Odea, not a topografical one. As for Sarah, I find it ironic that she's using republican terminology yet supporting a partitionist outlook. Anyway, I think we should try to avoid veering into political debates from now on. ~Asarlaí 23:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats the last time i try to inject a bit of tongue-in-cheek response for a bit of crack (i did use a winky smiley face to try to convey it was) On topic - a topographical map isn't required Sarah777, and whilst Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions doesn't say that it can't be used, look at the examples used for location maps. I think in this case we should keep to the norm especially for consistency with all other kind of county articles. Its also an ugly topographical map as the colours used are too strong compared to some others used on Wikipedia, and the sea isn't done in a topographical way - its just one shade of blue and going by this [2] topographical map it should be different shades.

Can you provide a direct link to the map you mention Asarlai? If it is the one i remember and agreed to as being better due to following conventions better, then i'd back it - but need to see it to be sure. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Odea uploaded his example to an image website, but it seems the link is no longer working. You should ask him to upload a new one. ~Asarlaí 00:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it was just following conventions so would be easy to repropose here. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention, I was talking about the red-dot-locator-maps. I think the current county maps are fine, apart from the bit of Wales that's missing. ~Asarlaí 17:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh i think i wa on about the example "Dr." Blofeld suggested. RA designed the map, so hes to blame for Wales being missing - though i have intended to rectify it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777, the topographical picture is a wonderful image from Space Shuttle radar topography surveys and in its most high resolution version (6.8 MB) you can see almost every drumlin in Ireland, but it is too richly coloured (high saturation) and contains very busy topographical detail which would obscure any text overlay or location pin that would identify settlements on it. Any map for our purposes would need to be fairly pale, with muted or pastel colours. Sorry. Mabuska, my thinking would be to omit bits of Wales and Scotland as unnecessary. The map can be quite schematic and leave out detail that is not required. Quite often, the emptier a design is, the more elegant it is, because elegance is economy and simplicity. It's like laying out a document, where whitespace is your friend. — O'Dea (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So then, why do the proposed maps look so goddamn ugly? Sarah777 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No-one else really thinks so. Though i think we could fix it possibly. I'll get back with a proposal - which could be adopted if there is consensus for change. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the need not to show Scotland or Wales - its real-world. There is no consensus for changing the maps anyways, i only brought it up to see what opinion there was on it as Sarah777 didn't like what was currently there. Me, Asarlai, and Laurel are content with keeping it the way it is - which is near enough the same as being against a topographical map. Bastun and GoodDay are also against a topographical map. So there is clearly no consensus for one. And on keeping it simple - a topographical map doesn't keep it simple, and would distract from the point of the map - depicting the counties which are geo-political or geo-historical entities. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If we followed the conventions as set out by Wikipedia on map locations such as this, the following would be what style and colours we should be using (i've also included the image description i used for this example):

Note that the proposed lede above which has unanimous support so far now concentrates on Ireland the state purely, the maps should follow suit, and the counties of Northern Ireland don't need to be depicted, as the Counties of Ireland article which would be linked to in the proposed lede above and it shows the full map of all counties on the island. Would also mean we wouldn't have to explain its showing the counties of the island meaning we'd have to use the RoI unpiped to state what states they belong to. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would would call that a "Map of Ireland" rather than a "Map of Ireland". Fmph (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In detail its still a map of the RoI above anything else - can't help the fact NI is stuck on the same the island in a real-world map. IMoS wise, wikilinking the "Ireland" to Republic of Ireland saves with the IMoS and is accurate. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, who wants to help with adding coordinates to National Monuments? These monuments are included in the big big monuments database, but only a few have coordinates. Having coordinates makes it a lot easier to find them and makes it possible to plot these monuments on a map. multichill (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related note on co-ordinates. How on earth do we input co-ordinates for ancient/medieval territories when we don't know exactly where their epicenter was. The geobot or whatever it is frequently adds the co-ords missing tag, but how can you apply a specific co-ord to an area that is generally far far larger than a city. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See (or ask at) WP:GEO. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Made a start on List of National Monuments in County Clare. Eddylandzaat (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Did most of them in County Clare. Can identify the rest due to bad maps, clouds or a too small size to see on the maps. Eddylandzaat (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised that the above category have been notified to CFD on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 14 Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently there are three articles relating to the constitutional quirk of the Republic between 1936-1949:

• Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949, an article on the issue;
• Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936, which (among others) authorised the Oireachtas to pass a law to authorise the usage of the King for diplomatic purposes, and
• Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936, the "authorisation act" for above.

Based on a bit of research I have noticed there has been some kind of evolution on how de Valera wanted to word on this "dual head of state" system on the constitution:

• In 1935 he planned to put explicit authorisation on the text of the constitution, but
• By mid-1936, an External Relation Bill has been drafted and was intended to pass the Oireachtas after the ratification of a new constitution (one that looks different to that actually ratified) should Edward VIII not abdicate.

The issue is how do I organise those information into these articles, esp regarding to the 1935 drafts-- they were constitutional amendments, yet they contain languages are similar to the External Relations Act (i.e. As long as Ireland is still in the Commonwealth, Letters of Credence and Treaties should be issued on the authority of the Executive Council [without naming the King]). Is that appropriate for me to include those 1935 proposals as an "origin" of the External Relations Act or incorporate into the 27th Amendment? --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to inform you that the two images of posters in this category have been put up for deletion, along with this one. There are potentially others that I do not know about, as they were nominated individually, which makes them harder to track (and I don't know much about Commons). Silverseren^C 19:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought I should point-out that User:Kei Jo has recently moved Road signs in the Republic of Ireland to Road signs in Ireland without discussion. ~Asarlaí 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Sarah777 (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This is taken from an stub Kilclooney. The entire stub consists of:

Kilclooney is a townland located near Ballinasloe, County Galway, Ireland.

The rest is template and tags! If we include every townland in these templates then they could grow to be page-length. And grouping Cities and Towns under "Towns" while putting villages in with townlands is illogical. Towns and villages are collectively a different class of units from townlands. A townland need not have any population (sometimes doesn't) whereas towns and villages are always populated - if not they are classified separately. I suggest amending the template to include "Towns and villages" as one layer and "Townlands" as a separate layer (preferably with a "hide" option.

This template from Kilkenny looks much more logical:

Sarah777 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that someone tampered with the template and dumped townlands in with villages to make space for the "baronies" section. Can we not add a new category? Anyone know how to do that?

Sarah777 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware the NI navboxes already had the villages and townlands stuck together before the baronies section (which i created along with the NI barony articles) was added. I opened a debate on the topicof why having villages and townlands being together. Yes many villages are named after townlands, and usually their articles state that, but what about the towns that are named after townlands? Should it not be called "Towns and townlands" lisewise? Personally distinct townlands that aren't villages or towns should be seperate in my opinion. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add on the entire barony thing - i concentrated only on the baronies that are in Northern Ireland. Someone else, can't remember who, took it upon themselves around the same time to do the Republics. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it again...I agree...articles about townlands only should be in their own section. ~Asarlaí 08:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Could we come up with an agreed template? (I don't know how to add a separate section for townlands - too technical :) Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah that a page length template of townlands would be silly. They should be excised. Agree that the Kilkenny example is better. However.....I quite like the "Barony" category. It's small and unassuming. As most forumites will know, I'm a big fan of baronies, so I'd like to retain that bit and add it to the Kilkenny example please. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please join in on the discussion on if or if not the Lords of Ireland were Irish monarchs and if the Ladies of Ireland should be included in the List of Irish consorts. See Talk:List of Irish monarchs and Talk:List of Irish queens and consorts. Thank you.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

They are two stupid lists and should both be deleted. It's only an excuse to replicate the kings and queens of England from Henry II onwards in the List of English monarchs and call them kings/lords and queens/ladies of Ireland. There is already a List of High Kings of Ireland and all of the Gaelic queens save three (four if you count Queen Question mark) are red-linked. Pointless duplication just for the sake of having Irish-related Wikipedia articles with pictures of English kings! How come List of monarchs of East Anglia, for instance, doesn't have all those Tudors and Stuarts who reigned over the territory of East Anglia just as surely as they reigned over the territory of Ireland? Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no provocative disruptive political point to be made (and enforced by a large British majority of editors) in the case of East Anglia. Sarah777 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, delete these silly lists. Snappy (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because East Anglia was no longer a kingdom but a part of the Kingdom of England so the comparison is irrelevant.

The List of High Kings of Ireland is irrelevant and has no purpose to this discussion and ignores the entities that succeeded it, i.e. the Lordship of Ireland and the Kingdom of Ireland.

Regardless a list of monarchs would simply be duplication of Monarchy of Ireland which lists all monarchs of Ireland - Gaelic and British. I see no harm in a list of Irish consorts though. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So are you saying that some of the English/British kings or queens had Irish consorts that wouldn't be in the lists of English or British consorts? If that was so it would be amusing and well worth having a list! Otherwise it's just needless duplication and point-making. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And pointless point scoring at that. Sarah777 (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why must in any arguement of Britain in Ireland always descend into petty claims of point scoring and personal politics? I thought unionists were the ones who were suppossed to have a siege mentality.

Scolaire are you saying that Irish consorts being in a list of English/British consorts mean that it also includes Irish Gaelic consorts? I hardly think so. List_of_Irish_consorts is not a pointless article, though obvious tidying up could be done, and no doubt replacing the English/British consorts with "Main article" links to prevent duplication. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you have proposed something similar over at the articles talk page about wikilinking. The article for me has merits, and "Main article", "See also" templates would remove any duplication. I would suggest merging (or redirecting) List of Irish monarchs to Monarchy of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe moving Monarchy of Ireland to List of Irish monarchs and using its layout instead of the one currently at List of Irish monarchs. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC) - taking to articles in question. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm gone a bit rusty Wiki-wise the past year. Where can I find the Afd tag and procedures? I have an urgent need for it. Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just type WP:AfD. Scolaire (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Before we do or don't delete anything, could we create the actual biographical articles on the Queens of Ireland? Red links are an eyesore. The small number of articles on women of Gaelic Ireland is tiny, so it would be good to start with some well-documented women, such as the above.

A word of advise: I would ignore the list of Ard Ri's given by medieval poets, and concentrate on men listed as Ard Ri Eire/Ri Eire in the annals or by modern academics. Glorified pirates like Niall of the Nine Hostages were only retrospectively made Ard Ri. Concentrating on historic/academicly accecpted Ard Ri's will cut the list of Gaelic Queens/consorts down to managable size. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All monarchies started out as glorified pirates or neighborhood thugs. Let's not get too prissy about our own lot. Sarah777 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find out where the discussion on the template(s) for Irish towns now sits. Currently there are several different types on towns and village articles (which is a mess). They are mainly tagged for proposed deletion. The tag links to Template:Infobox place Ireland - but I'm not sure what the proposed replacement is nor where the deletion proposal stands. Can any one of you Wiki-bureaucrats shed some light on the issue? (And btw I am no longer advocating a topographical map or nicer colours - I accept ye are, in the main, of low visual acuity, a condition that can't be cured in the time available). Sarah777 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As I am seeing it, {{Infobox place Ireland}} would be deleted and pages would need to be edited to move the information within that template into {{Infobox settlement}}, the site-standard infobox for places which would replace it. The deletion discussion linked at the top of the infobox is not related to the navbox discussions at all. The other discussions here relate to navboxes, county and town, and you in fact lead one of them, involving standardising the separation of Townlands, which should be easy to do and in my view consensus there will not be an issue, it is the logical course. Laurel Lodged may wish to comment on the county navbox, which is tangential to the broader "traditional counties" question which is worth taking time to discuss due to the wider implications. The map and map description issues relate to some of the infobox issues, but are not entirely tied to them. I am seeing about getting the en.wikpedia.org software to support the French solution, which allows a binary map that click-toggles via a link at the bottom, see for example fr:Mullingar and try the Voir la carte administrative and Voir la carte topographique links at the bottom of that infobox. Finally, and I stress this, I am not any more a bureaucrat than you but I think that sums it up. Sswonk (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm loving that French map! Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Thanks Sswonk - this is getting close to something attractive. Sarah777 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And I note that the article about sovereign Ireland is named fr:Irlande (pays). Which, I must explain to the monoglots here means "Ireland (country)". (This is an observation, not a discussion, so the ArbCom enforcers can take a hike). Sarah777 (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And it says in the intro, "en forme longue la République d'Irlande". Again, just an observation. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Different language Wikipedia so different editors and different agreements my bet - what consensus between editors here may have no relevance in what is in all events a seperate Wikipedia entity. Also Sarah777 the following comment: (And btw I am no longer advocating a topographical map or nicer colours - I accept ye are, in the main, of low visual acuity, a condition that can't be cured in the time available) - can be considered uncivil whther it is a joke or not and should be cut out. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Mabu - don't even think about it. Sammy Johnson said that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". On Wiki, a claim of "incivility" is the first refuge of a censor. Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you think. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Curiously, on the Irish language wikipeida, the island is at ga:Éire but the state is at ga:Poblacht na hÉireann. Why is this? Snappy (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Snap, that is a fine question. May I call you Snap? At any rate, there is this matter of having a designated place to discuss it, which I have pointed out in the past is actually warned against something like a scarecrow warns crows. Nevertheless, there is that place and as much as I think we could discuss it here, Sarah's observation starts to morph into a discussion when you pose questions. In fact, at the designated place, there is a question now: WT:IECOLL#Ireland name. Fmph tried to quash it, but since that is the place, I think you should move this there. I say this again not because I agree with scarecrowing, but because I think at this page things might start to unravel and people (for example possibly me and probably Sarah!) might invite getting "sanctioned" for being themselves in the ensuing unraveling. The first elf appeared on the product's packaging in 1933; inspired by the ad, Grant added two more and named the trio Snap, Crackle and Pop.^[1] Snap is always portrayed with a baker's hat and Pop with the military cap of a marching band leader. Crackle's red or striped stocking cap leaves his occupation ambiguous.^[1] Corporate promotional material describes their personalities as resembling brothers. Snap is the oldest and a problem solver, Crackle is an unsure "middle child" and Pop is a mischievous youngster.^[1] (From Snap, Crackle and Pop).

Who can this anony-mouse postester be??!

Thanks for the "warning". Btw, you can call me Snappy, my username does not come from Rice Krispies but from that fact that I am a "snappy" dresser! ;-) Snappy (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:The Troubles in Omagh#2011? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've done some of the articles that needed to be done on villages in County Clare (most of them are stubs though so fill them in if ye have any info). I had to delete some of them from the template as they were either entirely rural or/and were not notable. Most of them were originally taken from the Clare County library website and the vast majority of the ones I removed only contained information from before the Famine.

Heres the current version of it:

In an unrelated matter, is there a need to include military history in political infoboxes for Irish Politicians. For example the article for Constance Markievicz has two seperate infoboxes, one on her political history and one on her military career. Also Sean Lemass does not have a military infobox despite the fact that he was a participant in the Easter Rising. I'm just proposing to merge them together (see Dwight D. Eisenhower for an example of what I'm proposing).

Exiledone (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the Clare Places. I'm working on the Clare Places for the Dutch Wikipedia so I will cross-check them (and if needed: work on them) while doing so. But I think I have still about 40 places to go! Eddylandzaat (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Flags, emblems and "military" boxes have spread over Wikipedia like a cancer. I put it down to originally a vast army ('scuse pun) of bored US military and ex-military types whiling the time in Iraq or Germany away doing a spot of patriotic editing. They started off thinking British/US/Western Imperialism wasn't really "nationalism" at all but when they drew an inevitable counter nationalist response - so Wiki has become militarized beyond repair. Such boxes should have absolutely no place in a biography.

As for the Clare box, we really need a separate hidable (?) section for townlands. If only every townland had a flag, a crest, a monarch and a description as well as a name we'd be really away in a hack. Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do people hate infoboxes? I like them and I think it's a good way of displaying information.

Compared to other counties there is a lot in the Villages/Townland category. I'd be inclined to move some of them up such as Scarrif, Killaloe and Kilkee to the town section.

Exiledone (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes should be a kind of resumé from an article.

About the Clare infobox. I'm not sure Kilkee is a fully fledged town with an official Town Council. If not, it should be moved back down. Townlands are in fact a difficult thing. It is sometimes hard to determine if a townland is notable. Eddylandzaat (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Kilkee does have a town council (whether it deserves one given it's population is another matter). I probably should've been a bit more through in weeding some of them out. A few more will have to go.

Exiledone (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised that I have listed this on WP:AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 26. I've nothing against Breifne - a lovely place in fact. But all the data is already in Kingdom of Breifne. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Kings of East Breifne redirects to East Breifne so i see no reason for the keeping of this duplication. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Kings of East Breifne too should go. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It already is. I stated its now a redirect. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

From the article "Monkstown Football Club";

Officials

• Henry Millar, President of the IRFU 1928/29
• Capt. J. R. Ramsey, President of the IRFU 1956/57
• Robert Ganly, President of the IRFU 1980/81
• Ken Mills, President of the Leinster Branch IRFU 1986/87
• Brian Brady, President of the Leinster Branch IRFU 2005/06
• Jerome "Jerry" Counihan, President of the ARLB 2009/2010
• Donal Courtney, International Referee

- the question is - can all these people (bar one) be named even though they are unreferenced and have no Wiki-article? My understanding is that without any reference supplied their names should be removed. If they are actually "President of the Leinster Branch IRFU 2005/06" and if that makes them notable a reference or link to where there existence and position can be reliably confirmed is essential? Sarah777 (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The first three were president of the national union, so I think they are worth mentioning in this article. The second three were president of a local branch, so I don't think they are worth mentioning. Eddylandzaat (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

But even if they are Presidents do they not require some reference to substantiate that? If the position is notable the refs must exist. Sarah777 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I raise this is that we need some fairly rigid guidelines here; personally I've never heard of any of these people. And Wiki (Ireland) is full of articles that name anyone from some local "character", classmates to some tiny GAA clubs under-21 "stars". Up to now I have simply deleted unreferenced names on sight. If someone wants to refer to "Robert Ganly, President of the IRFU 1980/81'' then the onus is surely on them to provide a reference? Sarah777 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This project, about making photographs of monuments, is spreading like wildfire. I think 13 or 14 countries now take part. But I don't think there is an Irish branch. Anyone interested in taking the lead of this (sorry, I'm not the right guy for taking the lead). More info: Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 Eddylandzaat (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised that France features - I've had images from France deleted based on some bizarre French scenery copyright law! Sarah777 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish to merge Gilla Mochua Ó Caiside with Gilla Mo Dutu Úa Caiside, retaining the latter as the correct title. Any objections? If not, please advise on how to do so. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy the text you want to retain from Gilla Mochua Ó Caiside into Gilla Mo Dutu Úa Caiside, then replace the content of the former with #Redirect [[Gilla Mo Dutu Úa Caiside]]. — O'Dea (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, don't just do that! Go to WP:MERGE and follow the instructions carefully, especially as regards edit summaries. It is essential to preserve attribution. Scolaire (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Woops! Sorry. I never actually performed a merge. What Scolaire said. — O'Dea (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Check out Talk:Colleen Corradi Brannigan - is this allowed? Sarah777 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

She has some notability. But writing one's own biography here is of course not allowed, also see WP:SELFPUBLISH. Many artists, writers, bands I think have tried and eventually had their entry deleted. But looking at the history (Colleen Corradi Brannigan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google)), I think it has had sufficient scrutiny. You could run it by Alison (talk · contribs) on her talk page, she has indicated before nice people having business cards masquerading as articles is just not a good idea, period. Other than that, it is a case I think of locking the barn door after the horse ran away, she got away with creating her own entry. Sswonk (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

She's not the only one doing it, check out Conor McGahon, this is very likely self published. Being a former local councillor and son of a former TD doesn't meet notability guidelines, but maybe it should be allowed just to show that, notorious homophobe Brendan McGahon now has a gay son who is happily married to a man! Snappy (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Are we allowed call people "notorious homophobes" on Wiki - or is it merely a safe assumption regarding FG politicians? Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"The lady doth protest too much methinks". Not Sarah - BMcG. Isn't it always the way with zealots? The co-incidence is too delicious to be allowed to be deleted. Keep CMcG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned the link above, "also see WP:SELFPUBLISH", but that isn't a prohibition of self-publishing on this wiki, it just says self-published sites and books are not generally reliable. Brannigan stated that "the article was handwritten by me , Colleen and I used as a b asis what I had already written on my website. changing it completely", so therefore she admitted to using a non-reliable source to do what really is prohibited, by policy, that being Wikipedia:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. If you can prove McGahon is solely responsible for his own article, it should go away. To be sure, any politician, corporation, state, planet or galaxy that writes its own page should have the same fate. Most folks I know here are good people, in it to write an encyclopedia and correct errors, etc. I don't like throwing around those bluelinks, though, Snappy. That ends up feeling like treating WP as a game, where you pass out tokens and demerits. Broadly, "autobiography" is a very wrong way to get an article, and should be directly discouraged. Sswonk (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to go on a bit of spree reverting edits to various Irish articles, with due care to keep subsequent valid edits of course. I came across him by accident when he messed up the Lambay Island article, but an IP editor, using various IP addresses, that resolve to Mexico has been doing slow-motion edits over the last 6 or 7 months (at least) that claim various properties, including Kilkenny Castle, Ireland's Eye, Lambay Island, the Powerscourt Estate and Glendalough House (a section in the Robert Barton article), belonged to the above mentioned Martin Breyer. Here's an example of a set of edits from September last diff, which I think could be fairly described as bull. Or how's about this one or this, These two , to the Powerscourt Estate article claim some sort of weird deal involving the Childers family ([3] and [4]). There is one edit which I can't find again that claimed that he sold interests in the 1930s in Baileys Irish Cream (!) and the Smithwicks brewery to finance buying a property. He has some sort of yen to include the Childers and the Andrews family in these edits, as well as either including Aleister Crowley in these edits or editing the Crowley article, for some very odd reason. So, if anyone has various Irish stately piles or islands watchlisted, keep an eye out for this guy. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! I'm now alerted :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Making coffee but about to start :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the message. The vandal just poked his head too far over the parapet today, didn't he? I've cleaned up Kilkenny Castle and Robert Barton, but as you're aware, there are several other articles involved. If it helps, these are all the IPs I've found that have been involved: 189.149.191.15, 189.148.91.194, 189.148.10.68, 187.153.80.29, 187.153.6.224, 189.148.17.46, 187.153.90.138, 189.149.207.99, 187.136.52.16, 189.149.209.244 (today's - blocked). Glad you've come along, 'cos I was about to go to bed. I'll check how you got on in the morning. Best!  —SMALLJIM  23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) (I've tidied up the IP links that I was too lazy to do properly last night. —SMALLJIM )

No prob.. Delayed as I had to reboot my computer there; the hardware, as well as its owner, is getting a bit old and stalls for no good reason FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Think I found one more at Special:Contributions/189.149.149.57 which is an IP in the correct range by searching for James Brennan, which apparently is another name for a Martin Breyer according to this edit [5]. Apparently there are more than one Breyer :) This one edited the Pearse Museum article with an unsourced edit, although ironically perhaps, he did correct an error about Margaret Mary Pearse, being Padraig Pearse's sister, rather than mother. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks for taking the night shift :) For the record I found one more IP: 187.136.76.87 with a couple of edits to Michael Bertiaux, but they were immediately reverted. There were no remaining problems on Crowley etc., thanks to the popularity of those topics.  —SMALLJIM  09:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't mess with Aleister Crowley :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article on Lough Allen has a picture File:Lough Allen Leitrim.jpg which

1. does not actually show Lough Allen
2. Is described on the article as having been taken from a point where Lough Allen can not be seen

More at File talk:Lough Allen Leitrim.jpg#Wrong_lake

I was going to nominate it for deletion, but thought I'd first drop a note here to see if any others editors had some thoughts on the matter. Best to discuss it at the image's talk page: File talk:Lough Allen Leitrim.jpg#Wrong_lake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL! That is a classic Gavigan! The lake in the picture is Lough Key. Sarah777 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as there was no immediate replacement available, I went into my archive and fetched a shot of Spencer Harbour, taken in 2003. The scan of this photo could have been better -- but this is currently the best I can offer. I've already replaced it in the article. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to get the opinion of the people here on this exchange of edits:

• cur | prev) 10:31, 28 April 2011 Cavila (talk | contribs) (2,574 bytes) (rollback | undo)
• (cur | prev) 10:29, 28 April 2011 Cavila (talk | contribs) m (2,544 bytes) (moved Irish manuscript 23 N 10 to 23 N 10 over redirect: Nah, we have articles for being 'informative', not article titles. This is a common shorthand for the manuscript.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:45, 26 April 2011 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (2,544 bytes) (rem stub tag) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:45, 26 April 2011 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) m (2,561 bytes) (moved 23 N 10 to Irish manuscript 23 N 10: more meaningful title) (undo)

I was doing some routine tagging and came across and article titled "23 N 10". As this is basically meaningless to the ordinary reader I moved the article to "Irish manuscript 23 N 10" As you can see this was reverted by User:Cavila with the comment "Nah, we have articles for being 'informative', not article titles. This is a common shorthand for the manuscript." To my mind this is akin to moving the R110 road to just "R110". There are many people in Ireland who'd recognise that as a road number, but I'd suggest that 99.9% of the readership might more likely think is was the name of a distant Galaxy. Sarah777 (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

[e.c.] Sahah, we do not add descriptions to titles, unless there's a need to disambiguate (e.g. "Benin", not "Country Benin"). You would do well to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's criteria for naming articles . See Hebrew manuscripts for many similar cases (4Q175, 4Q448, 4Q108). Cavila (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we keep the substantive debate at the relevant TP, Talk:23 N 10, please. RashersTierney (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rash, this isn't really about that single article; there are several more of the same type. The very first criterion cited by Cavila states " Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic." So I guess we are dealing with a less than ideal title. So let's make it closer to the ideal? Sarah777 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on this particular question at Talk:23 N 10. If there's is a bigger issue, I seem to be missing it. RashersTierney (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect Rash. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The new system of naming numbered documents is much better! Sarah777 (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a weird idea, but could redirects be usefull here? Eddylandzaat (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Today I launched List of Michelin starred restaurants in Ireland. This is the first step in a personal project to describe all restaurants on the island of Ireland, which have or once had a Michelin star. It is not a difficult job for me, because I have finished the same project on the Dutch Wikipedia.

The articles will be relatively short, because I severely dislike the infight shown on the present articles about restaurants. See for an example Restaurant Patrick Guilbaud under "Style". If agreed upon, I like to remove that infighting.

Hope you lads and lasses like the project. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Planning a trip there. Any specific photo requests? Eddylandzaat (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Is that mural still there? Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Two year ago it was still there. But can it be used on Commons, seeing the copyright in the top left corner? Eddylandzaat (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the mural is covered by commons:Template:FoP-Ireland irrespective of the copyright notice. "Works of artistic craftsmanship" is generally considered to means sculptures. While Sarah certainly owns the copyright of the photo, the image is a derivative work and I believe that even under Irish copyright law any image of it still retains the copyright of the artist for 70 years pma. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Under Irish Copyright law (Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, section 93), "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, where permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public" are not infringed by "making a photograph or film of it". --HighKing (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then I will make a picture of it. The funny thing is that the answer also solved a mystery to me. I had seen the type of building beforen, but didn't have a clue what it was. The picture solved that. Eddylandzaat (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a Wiki-BLP of Karen Forde, the artist - but I notice it has since been deleted on the grounds of "not-notable". Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made a few pictures but due to adverse weather I doubt if they are any better then the present one. But it is intresting to see that the map of the mural is still there, but that the signing almost disappeared. Eddylandzaat (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have created a new template for Irish related article here. Bjmullan (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, and what is the use of that? Eddylandzaat (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What is "Irish English"? Is it like Franglais? Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In terms of spelling, "Irish English" is no different from "British English". Personally, I prefer "American/Canadian English" since it's much more phonetic. I'm surprized the Free State kept using "British English" after independence—it abolished quite a few "British" placenames (Queenstown for example), why not abolish "British" spelling too? :-P ~Asarlaí 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Would that not be a bit too petty minded? On topic, as Asarlai wikilink piped too, its called "Hiberno-English"(it would appear "Irish English" is an alternate name), however what is the purpose of this template when spellings are the exact same as British English as far as i'm aware? Should we create a Mid-Ulster English template for Northern Ireland related articles? Personally i think no to that idea and Bjmullans, for would it not be stupid to give every dialect where words are spelt the same a template? The Ireland place infobox got deleted for redundancy, i'm sure this one probably would too.

I would also like to ask Bjmullan for clarification... is this template for "Irish" the state related articles or "Irish" the island articles? As Mid-Ulster English is suppossed to be a dialect of Hiberno/Irish-English so does that not mean this template would have to cover the island? If it is being used to cover the island i find it very bad faith and provocative to add the state flag of the Republic of Ireland to the template. If the template is purely for the Republic of Ireland related articles, it should be made clearer in its documentation to avoid any misunderstandings. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A formatting issue with both Template:Use Irish English and Template:Use British English has been raised regarding its use of adding flag icons at the top of articles. Please join the discussion at Template talk:Use British English#Formatting issues with FA star. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

When I created the template it seemed like a good idea. No one is required to use it but why not in articles concerning Ireland? And Mabuska if you think it would be a good idea to create a Mid-Ulster English template then why not? Now with this lovely sunny weather I'm off for a poke... Bjmullan (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't normally be in favour of redundant templates, but when you edit an "Irish" article with the British English template on it, a big Union flag appears on top, which is imho is an unpleasant surprise. Rather creating duplicate templates, it might be better to remove the Union flag or replace it with a neutral one. Snappy (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for any flags. As Mabuska pointed-out, not only ar they provocativ, but they're also inaccurate. I think the "Irish English" template should be deleted...since "Irish English" spelling is the same as "British English" and the "Irish English" template seems to hav been made purely becaus of flags. ~Asarlaí 21:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Before you all get heated under your knickers the flags have been removed from both template. I still think the template is as valid as the British one. Bjmullan (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I backed the idea of removing flags from both in that discussion - British English is spoken in some other places and not just the UK so it is inaccurate. American English and British English have clear written differences whereas British English and Hiberno-English don't, so what purpose does its own template serve other than duplication? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gah! Who put the blooming flag on a maintenance template in the first place! Oh well these things happen. Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

Ciarraige - there is a series of articles relating to Ciarraige "a people found in Ireland" in Medieval times but the references are very sparce. Are these for real? Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of questionable articles, I think Slippery Island, Waterford is another one. --TheEditor888 00:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghan888 (talk • contribs) c

Good spot! Sarah777 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ciarraige are a real people found in historic Ireland and are frequently shown on maps of ancient Irish clans/peoples. Whether there was that many branches i don't know though. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And it seems "Slippery Island" may be some sort of tidal rock outcrop near Bunmahon - but I can't find any reference to it not derived from the Wiki-stub. There are islands/rocks in the area but they are not named on any map I can find. Sarah777 (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The link at the bottom of that article needs to be followed, and then once on the site go "Download Country Files", the direct link for Ireland data is http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/cntyfile/ei.zip and, it's in there. That zipped archive expands to a 4.6 megabyte tab-delimited text table, and the entry is on line 13,466 of that file. I see why you couldn't find much. The site the zip file comes from is for the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and they possibly got the reference from a nautical chart. An encyclopedia entry has limited use, possibly an "Islands of coastal Ireland", "Islands of County Waterford" list? It is currently an orphan. Sswonk (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Slippery Island has slipped off the map I see - if, indeed, it was ever on any map. Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Some bot is adding a "British English" tag, complete with the loathsome flag of the genocidal British Empire, to Ireland-related articles; which, per the WikiBrit pov pushers, the article titled "The British Isles" is. I presume as it is being added automatically by a bot it can be repeatedly removed on sight? This is clear and highly disruptive attack on the Project as it relates to sovereign Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The flag should be removed, since "British English" spelling is used outside the UK as well (for example in the ROI). I've begun a discussion about it. ~Asarlaí 10:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose in that case the British English tag should no more have the Union Flag than any article written in English should have the Flag of St George. But it is rather amusing that Sarah777 should object on the grounds of POV while referring to it as "the loathsome flag of the genocidal British Empire". Opera hat (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed those dreadful comments. Do they contravene some Wiki rule? They are hateful and have no place here. I notice there is a concerted effort to remove anything "British" from Wikipedia on the part of a few editors. Are there sanctions that can be applied to this behaviour? WizOfOz (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The only "Wiki-rule" which the truth can contravene is the Law of Hypocrisy. It being a core Wiki-philosophy that verifiable facts can yield to no right to be offended. Sarah777 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It also seems clear to me that to be consistent with WP:NPOV, if the pov-pushers insist sovereign Ireland is a British Isle then per WP:NPOV parts of the article relating to Ireland should be written in Hiberno-English. Could someone make such a tag; tricolor featured. We may need one for bot-application. Sarah777 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777's behaviour is best raised at AN/I. Such provocative and biased statements should be discouraged as it only raises tensions and seeks to bait editors into a flame-war.

On topic I think Sarah777 needs to make a clearer distinction between sovereign Ireland the state and the island of Ireland as their statements seem to imply the island is sovereign. The island is split between two different sovereign states as they full well know - and as WikiProject Northern Ireland is listed as a descendant of this WikiProject, surely that means this WikiProject deals with the island of Ireland not just the sovereign state of same name? So what articles is this tag being added too as Sarah777 has left this important bit of information out? If it is Northern Ireland related articles then they have no case for arguement as NI is part of the UK and thus British. Thats not PoV-laden or provocative but simple geographic and political fact. If its Republic of Ireland related articles then yes there is an issue that should be addressed as the British flag shouldn't be hovering over RoI related articles due to the senstivity of some to it. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles has been protected to allow for discussion of its title. It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:

• British Isles
• British-Irish Council area
• Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
• British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is currently underway to consider the removal of flags from this template and possibly replacing it with an alternative image. RashersTierney (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussions ar also ongoing about the flags at Template talk:British English and Template talk:American English. ~Asarlaí 14:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started Illicit drug use in Ireland, it could do with some filling out for Cocaine, Cannabis and the head shops. Wikipedian231 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Define "illicit". Even more difficult define "Ireland" ! Sarah777 (talk)

And more difficult yet, define "drug".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article could do with a proper lede. Never before seen an article that has a quote as a lede lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Head shops?! The last time I stepped inside a head shop was in Venice, California in about 1971!!! And now they have them in Ireland? Faaaaar out!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to somehow tie in this drawing, I note the earnest callout #6: bubbles. Hey, Jeanne, like check out the bubbles, dude. A diehard hippie chick you are, can't remember the last time I read an authentic use of "far out". Doubt a Dublin Bubblin' would entice Chillum to leave BC, however. I've read drugs are very bad in Limerick, an awful and morbid scene. This story might be of use to someone helping with the article, paints a hellish picture, not an easy read. From it I recently learned the term sink estate. There's no good to come about where heroin is so deeply involved. Man, a plan, Afghanistan? The wiki article on drugs-ie, subject of this section, can't begin with a quote. But it does...bo(w)ldly... Sswonk (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne, they were springing up like... well, weeds... until two years ago. Then, despite the fact that apparently 100 people have died on our motorways in the past 5 years or so, over 500 apparently commit suicide each year, and only 2 (I think) deaths were associated with head shop products, it became a legislative priority to ban them/their products rather than tackle more serious issues. Oh, and this being Ireland, a couple of them got firebombed... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

So, that would make Ireland a bit like.....any other country! Wow Bastun, such insight. (I presume you are talking about the island of Ireland, btw. No dab.) Sarah777 (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's no dab, then I'm talking about the state. Obv. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I never saw onr when I lived there. God, I left way too soon so I did.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What is there to say, Bastun? There are two sides to the coin, firebombing a headshop sort of sums it up. Without revealing too much, I would not bat an eye over someone smoking a spliff in Harvard Square, nor many times would some Cambridge police. "Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?" The sales and industry mined from in part the destruction of lives and families, from making and keeping harder drugs fashionably illicit, is a different bag entirely. Many aspects of the culture of wastedness, mistrust of laws and false friendships that unwittingly provide cover for far worse crimes are, in fact, serious issues. Libertarian responses to them are as morally vacant as hypocritical ones. To be sure, closing head shops wouldn't be necessary if the market weren't there, so yes that is something like locking the barn door after the... you get the idea. Sswonk (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice start - illicit, illegal or unlawful, or all 3? Illegal is usual for the criminal law.Red Hurley (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Before invoking a formal RtM, I'd like to know if anybody else supports the view that the article currently at Irish Declaration of Independence should be moved back to its original home at Declaration of Independence (Ireland) (from which it was moved without discussion). Please join the discussion at Talk:Irish Declaration of Independence#Name of this article. --Red King (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an request to move Irish general election, 1918. See Talk:Irish general election, 1918. --Red King (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Back in February I included a "controversies" section on the Irish Red Cross article with citations. This was edited out by user "IRC Communications" and then by "JN100", who have edited nothing else. Could anyone interested in our public bodies keep an eye on this one.Red Hurley (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

These people have never heard of the Streisand effect. I now know all about a subject which I was previously totally ignorant! Snappy (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Too true. And the last few removals were done by an IP which is registered to IRC. I can feel an IP range ban coming on. Fmph (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the election — candidates here. Vote early, vote often.Red Hurley (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I went to look up this article to find it has been redirected to a dictionary definition, seemingly at the behest of one editor in discussion with another, see:Talk:Skanger#Expand.2C_merge_or_redirect. Before this, the article was ref'ed by some media organisations. It seems the article wasn't quite up to scratch. I'm proposing reinstating and improving it. Anyone have any thoughts or opinions? I don't want to chage in blindly on my own (plus a little help might be nice!) GainLine ♠ _♥ 09:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems it previously fell foul of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What makes you think it would be different this time? RashersTierney (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that happened because it used a dictionary for a source. It's a working clas subculture in the same was as Chav. Better sourcing should stop it falling foul of the same problem. GainLine ♠ _♥ 10:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that most articles on County Cork settlements are using Infobox settlement rather than Infobox place Ireland. One editor, perhaps in good faith, has recently been replacing the Ireland infoboxes with the generic infoboxes (see here). How should we sort this out? ~Asarlaí 00:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Saw the 'new template' on a few articles and assumed it was an upgrade on the 'Infobox place Ireland'. Has the editor in question been contacted? RashersTierney (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm just waiting for a reply on my talkpage. ~Asarlaí 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm attempting to make article consistent with better quality maps and adding infoboxes do those which don't have them. Lets not forget that I've added infoboxes mostly to articles which didn't even have a infobox or map like this. We use infobox settlement for main Irish cities too like Dublin, Cork (city), etc as they are better quality. There's really no reason why this can't be used in every article... If you persist in reverting me Asarlai when I am also going to really cleanup these article in content too and make standard then I resign from doing the job now and 90% of the articles desperately in need of cleanup will not be edited by me and improved. I've found missing coordinates for many articles, uploaded photos from geograph myself if they are missing,, cleaned up some sourcing and poor sentences, despammed external links but I do not have the time to put effort into this if you revert me. Every infobox should look lovely and clean like Dublin with better quality svg pin maps,,, Other this we can make a wrapper template for Infobox Irish place in the design of infobox settlement with a better quality svg locator and less blocky infobox design and I can fill in the gaps of those articles which need infobox and improvements. But unless I can address each article in this format and am reverted then I will not do it and the articles will remain stale... I can make every article at least consistent with an infobox and map. Once I've gone through each county I will try to improve as many articles as I can with sourcing and filtering of unsourced, unverifiable content. The Irish villages really need an injection of quality, which I believe I am making the first steps towards with this drive.. Doesn't the infobox in Ballinspittle look good? Naturally I am doing this in good faith and want to make the first step towards standardising Irish place articles and improving quality... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But you're using the wrong template and you've been changing templates without discussion. All towns and villages in the Republic should use Infobox place Ireland. I have no problem with your other edits. ~Asarlaí 16:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Who said they all should? Wasn't infobox place Ireland created back in a time when pin maps and infobox settlement were generally not in use? Shouldn't the fact that the higher quality city articles use infobox settlement that they are an improvement and more flexible? And since when do I need permission to make edits to many different articles which I think are an improvement? As far as I can see the vast majority of village articles are untouched and in real need of major improvement. It seems at least half of them don't even have any infobox whatsoever, which I intend to put right... Infobox Ireland was made long before high quality svg maps existed. Now if the Irish place infobox was updated to inlcude the parameters of infobox settlement in a similar design and we replace the old green maps in favour of pin svgs then this would be a solution... I'm certain one or two editors could be able to create a wrapper template for Ireland like Italy for instance with little problem...But either way I really need this sorted out here as I do not want to put hours of work into making eeverything consistent and in order and tracing my steps later to find me being reverted and wasting my time trying to work towards cleaning them up. The first step is infoboxes, entirely consistent with a map and coordinates if possible.... Then they need an injection of sources/unsourced materian which is not really notable removed and written into something half decent..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the Ballinspittle infobox. Also, it appears it was changed in June 2010 and nobody noticed until now! If Dr. Blofeld is improving the articles then I say leave him to it. Scolaire (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Ireland placebox

How about as a compromise, we create a "frontend template", say called {{Infobox Ireland settlement}}, which contains the common information for all Irish places, and translates Irish specific division names to pass through into {{Infobox settlement}}. This would allow for the same uniform presentation across differing countries, but still allow for the easy of use of filling out a regional specific template. In addition, stylistic choices can be hashed out at the template level, rather than having to making massive changes to numerous articles. This could, of course, be accomplished by refactoring {{Infobox place Ireland}}, but depending on the syntax, it may be a bit more difficult. I have a bot which could help make this as seemless as possible. What do you think? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As an example of this approach, see any of the numerous templates which transclude Template:Uses Infobox settlement. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I also like the Ballinspittle infobox. Though this issue raises another issue that hasn't been dealt with.... the statement of country in the Ireland template! UK for NI counties and Ireland or RoI for Ireland counties. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, by making a frontend, it would still look very similar to the box in Ballinspittle, but you would use |county=, |parish=, and not have to specify the country. Most or all other parameters would pass straight through. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The country issue was up for discussio, but it stalled with lack of input and outside input. That issue stlls needs rectified as we were all in agreeemnt to adding a country tag, just the name of the "countries" was the issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what he means Mabuska is that the infobox would state it is Ireland so you wouldn't need to add that to the infobox... There seems to be general consensus that given wikipedia is a global project then the country name must be given in the infobox I think...

As Mabuska has done a great job with starting townland articles we also need infoboxes for those but which state Townland as settlement type. The best thing would be to use infobox settlement I think... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Heres examples: Craigadick- infobox can be used for townlands. Tirkennedy - infobox can be used for Baronies. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses with them changes. Those infoboxes don't work appropriately for townlands or baronies. In fact i'd rather suggest i alter the civil parish infobox i created a while back. Example of it at Kilcronaghan. Also i have done townland articles for my local area, however i don't think it would be wise to do all townlands in the island unless your keen enough to go and create all tens of thousands.

I am also curious as to where your pulling those co-ordinates from? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK, I wasn't aware of that template, I'll leave that to you. I'm not working on Northern Ireland anyway... Location is found on google maps and coordinates worked out from a site called flashearth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with using the new template because the exisiting one shows two useful things, the whole country, and an inset county map. The new image only shows the whole country and it is too tall to do its job—the location being identified is just a small dot in a very large map, so the image is badly disproportionate, with too much wasted space. I have thought for a while that the existing image used, File:Ireland map County Cork Magnified.png (and the others for other counties), needs to be modernised with more appealing colours such as the far prettier ones in File:Island of Ireland location map Cork.svg, pale green and pale rose. I went to do this myself until I realised I would have to download and teach myself Inkscape software to work with SVG files, at which I have no experience, so I deferred this task. I have posted a quick-and-dirty image hack online to illustrate what I mean. Overlook the hasty crudeness and see the colour changes, please.

Would anyone be willing to do that for 32 maps? I think the effect would be very appealing and even better than the map in File:Ireland location map.svg.

Another thought: I don't think we should use {{flag|Ireland}} in the subdivision_name variable in the infobox. I believe flying the flag unnecessarily is a bit childish and we could stop using that {{flag}} template without mourning its loss (I am just stating a view and I won't waste any time wrestling over it). There are no national flags in the articles concerning places in other countries, see: Springfield, Queensland, Springfield, Nova Scotia, Springfield, Birmingham, and Springfield, Georgia.

Dr. Blofeld, You can get location coordinates from Google Maps without needing to visit flashearth.com (and zoom in a lot more closely for high accuracy) by right-clicking on the location in Google Maps and selecting "Drop LatLng Marker" from the drop-down menu that appears (you may have to enable the new features in Google Maps to get this facility). You can copy the data in the "LatLng Marker" to your clipboard by selecting and copying the coordinates text. If you get two pop-up menus when you right-click on the Google map, a Google menu and a Windows menu, press the ESC key once to get rid of the Windows context menu, then you can select the "LatLng Marker" menu option.

Also, Dr. Blofeld, would you be willing to drop the {{County Cork}} template into any articles where it is absent, as you go along? I have just added it to Ballinspittle. Thank you for your work, but I would prefer seeing it done with the existing template and a redesigned set of more appealing county images within it, as specified and illustrated above. — O'Dea 20:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully with O'Dea. Currently we have an inconsistency – most County Cork settlements are using the generic placebox, while almost every other settlement is using the Ireland placebox (and have been for a long time). The Ireland placebox isn't perfect but I prefer it to the generic one. So, it would be wiser just to improve the Ireland placebox rather than going through hundreds of articles and replacing it. Here are some improvements that could be made to the Ireland placebox:

• Maps could be made more compact and their colours changed to match the county maps (as O'Dea proposed)
• It could list the type of settlement (village, town, city) like the generic placebox
• There could be an option to list the state (as Mabuska noted, there was a discussion on this but it has since stalled)
• There could be an option to list the parish and barony
• The coordinates and grid reference could be shown on the same line to lessen the amount of whitespace

Also, if you want to discuss making new templates could you start a new thread? I don't want this one to go off-topic. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 22:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"needs to be modernised with more appealing colours such as the far prettier ones in File:Island of Ireland location map Cork.svg, pale green and pale rose" - O'Dea you can thank me, RA, Dmcq and everyone else who argued and argued and argued (you wouldn't believe how long we argued) over what colours to use for those new county maps - glad they are still being met with approval! Though they are incorrect in real-world sense as for some reason when RA drew up the map for me to colour in he neglected to add in the bits of Wales that should be showing!!! :-)

I don't think we really need the flag either, the NI settlements don't have one. Adding a civil parish and barony field would also be nice, we could if we wanted then show the whole descending hierarchy - state, county, barony, civil parish, settlement.

I however don't think we need to use the colours of the county maps. This map File:Ireland_location_map.svg i think is more than suitable as the green/pink one was just for the highlighting of the counties on Ireland and depicting which lied within a different state. As only the RoI settlements use this magnified map as NI settlements have their own close up map, File:Ireland_location_map.svg map is thus more clearer and i think would allow for more concise magnifications not muddied by those colours. Because seriously up close and magnified i don't think the dark focus green would look good at all - unless you just use the pale green all round, and the pink on the zoom-out could also distract from the topic which is settlements in the Republic. Though obviously File:Ireland_location_map.svg would also terrible if its going to be surrounded by whitespace which would just look terrible unless the sea is there. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea was to cover every county so they are not inconsistent. I started with County Cork as it has the most number of settlement articles. You are also missing the fact that most settlements are missing an infobox. In regards to maps, if we could get hold of some county locators like say the map shown in Llancarfan then this would be much better. I'll ask Plastikspork to update Irish infobox in a similar layout. Then if you are happy I will add it to every settlement in R. of Ireland. As it stands, I will not do any further work until the Irish infobox is updated and people are happy to have we working on articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to open a discussion over at the template talk page or whereever to discuss whatever changes you want to make. You just can't go ahead and ask an admin or whoever to change a template without a consensus from everyone for the change to be made. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have used File:Island of Ireland location map Cork.svg as the basis for a redesign suggestion. See this picture and comment on colours. I lightened the colours in the original file to allow the type showing the town name to be more legible; the original dark green swallowed the black type. I have not considered composition and dimensions deeply in making this suggestion; my first concern was with colours only. I don't think we should bother including bits of Scotland and Wales in the corner and along the edge: simplicity is a hallmark of elegant design and they're not relevant for our purposes. — O'Dea 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The picture you created looks quite good, the colours work great. The only problem i think is that maybe we show too much of the surrounding counties in the zoom-in as the island looks quite small and for smaller counties like Carlow it'd be harder to pick out the county with a dark colour at that size. The pink still distracts from it too. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Heres the non-pink one i created for the Republic Of Ireland region articles, well the Dublin one specifically. As NI isn't being covered by this template,t here isn't need for it to be included. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The grey Northern Ireland looks fine; I can live with that or the rose version, since rose is a traditional map colour for the UK. — O'Dea 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So are there any objections to Plastikspork updating the Irish settlement infobox like Ballinspittle but retaining some features like the Irish grid parameter etc? Can we at least give it a trial and see what people think? If we can settle on that I will start using the Irish infobox to add to settlements once it is updated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, though didn't one person argue that its a bit too zoomed out and that they would work on creating a magnified close in of the specific area such as Kinsale? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does everyone agree with the five proposals I made above? If so, we could make those changes now and just use the current maps until we agree on the new ones. By the way, I think this map should only be used for cities. ~Asarlaí 20:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the one that Dr. Blofeld created or used for Ballinspittle. It largely matches your proposals, and whilst it needs a zoom in, uses a map that concentrates solely on the one country in question. It looks FAR better using the default Wiki standard map colours rather than the distracting pink, dark pink and greens. Were not depicting counties here. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mabuska, are you saying that every ROI settlement should use the generic placebox? That the Ireland placebox shouldn't be used anymore? I think it would be wiser just to add some parameters to the Ireland placebox and make new county maps. The Ireland placebox is used on hundreds of pages and it's Ireland-specific, so it's easier to work with. ~Asarlaí 23:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than lacking the population and elevation bits, Dr. Blofields actually looks better, however i mean it can be incorpoated into the existing box. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When you say "incorporated into the existing box" do you mean the Ireland placebox or the generic one? ~Asarlaí 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From Dr. Blofields generic example into the Ireland one. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we're in agreement then. What does everyone else think about adding these few paramaters? Agree/Disagree? ~Asarlaí 00:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that we replace it with a standard appearance and map but indeed add the "Irish specificiations" as Asarlai has identified which can't be added with a standard infobox settlement. I'm sure Plastikspork would be willing to look into that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Ireland placebox by Stepheng3

I've created a new version of {{Infobox place Ireland}} in the sandbox which builds upon the generic {{Infobox settlement}}, adding Ireland-specific fields such as grid references and posttowns. I'd appreciate it if a few folks from this wikiProject would examine the test cases at Template:Infobox place Ireland/testcases and let me know if there are any major issues with the new version. If I don't hear back soon, I will update the live version of {{Infobox place Ireland}}. —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought the agreement was to add paramaters to the current (Ireland) infobox, rather than adding "Irish paramaters" to the generic one? Anyway, there are two things that should be changed. Firstly, "country" should be changed to "state" per the discussion here. Secondly, the timezone isn't needed (since the whole island is in the same timezone) so it should be removed. ~Asarlaí 12:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the timezone fields. However, please consider that people outside Ireland don't necessary know what timezone the island is on. I've changed the label to "State". Anything else? —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were altering the current Ireland infobox as well. It looks good technically, though does need a bit of cosmetic look to look as nice as the one thats already used (box decoration that is). Mabuska ^(talk) 23:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Stepheng3, please do not make a unilateral decision to update the template without consensus. There are a number of problems with your changes: 1. You have increased text size, making them less attractive. 2. You have removed the grey shading from the heading cells at the left hand side of the infoboxes for headings such as Province and County Seat. 3. You have increased the map sizes instead of making them more compact, as discussed above. 4. You have split the Website cell in two so the Website entry is no longer centre-justified. 5. You have removed the grey band or grey cell containing the word "Location" so the coat of arms is no longer visually separated from the map of Ireland. 6. You have done the same in the County Down example with the motto now unshaded. 7. In the Galway City example, you have replaced a small map with a big one, increasing the size of the template.

Altogether, the changes make the templates much less appealing than they are at present, and with the removal of shades of grey in cells, this makes them less readable. I'm sorry to be so unremittingly negative about your work but, unfortunately, the results disimprove the template. — O'Dea (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't update the template unless I believe WikiProject Ireland as a whole is satisfied with the changes. As for the aesthetic issues O'Dea raises, I think it's more important to have a consistent Infobox style for settlements and political units across all countries than to reinvent the wheel for each one. —Stepheng3 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised to see the principle of international consistency invoked here since all countries are different, with some common elements, so too much enthusiasm in attempting to shoehorn individual countries into an idealised global system can be misguided and I don't believe it is at all necessary. Where commonality can be achieved, that's fine, but the world is recognisable for its diversity and difference and there is nothing wrong with that. No need to pave over the differences with systematizing zeal. To the extent that any changes are introduced to the infoboxes, they can be incorporated without disimproving their appearance; change is not inconsistent with preserving good design. — O'Dea (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need for complete uniformity when each country. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Peace be with you. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Stepheng3 has undid his changes and withdrawn his proposal. I suggest we now get someone to make the changes that were agreed in the section above, ASAP. ~Asarlaí 21:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine have it your way. There was agreement here that the updated version of the infobox is aesthetically more pleasing. I was prepared to do the work to add the infoboxes and improve Irish articles. I'll stick to Scotland instead where they are keen to move forward and aren't stuck in the wiki dark ages.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the following vituperative and bitter remark was dropped onto my Talk page:

Keep your crappy grey boxes and stale place articles in that case. Some collaboration would have been nice as a constructive way forward and proposal how to improve the design of the current template not your "unremittingly negative" comment towards efforts to improve it. I was prepared to standardise all of the Irish village/town articles, find coordinates of the missing ones and improve article standards. Your attitude has prevented any form of progress.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My response is to point out, again, that there is no need to ignore beauty when implementing structural change. It is more than legitimate, it is desirable to wish to preserve an appealing appearance. The Irish know as well as anyone that "development" can be a mixed blessing when thoughtful care is not taken—look at our unfortunate architecture. I do not wish to block change but hope to keep it attractive, and that is constructive. We should aim to produce form and content of high quality. In my contributions to the discussion, above, I made constructive suggestions and offered ideas about design changes. If Blofeld wants to withdraw, that is his decision. — O'Dea (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem was with the suggested infobox.... Sorry but your response was equally as off. I've put a lot of time into trying to sort something out with this, so PLEASE tell me what exactly it is that is the problem with the proposed change other than "we're Irish, we're not conforming with everybody else".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't know? Please tell you? I refer you to my earlier remarks which listed the difficulties I identified and which can easily be corrected by Stepheng3. I will not repeat my objections; go read them again. Since I never said, "we're Irish, we're not conforming with everybody else", I can only assume you're not reading correctly; I don't know why. — O'Dea (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep calm and carry on

As an outsider to this debate, can someone please tell me how Ireland is different to say, South Africa or Chile, in such a way that the text size or background colours in the infobox need to be different to those used in articles about places in those countries? Can anyone tell me how the generic infobox is not suitable for articles about places in Ireland, with reference to matters factual and technical, rather than aesthetic, as the latter are generally only personal preferences. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Ireland placebox: implementation

This discussion has gone on too long. We've agreed what changes to make, now all we need is someone to do it. They aren't huge changes, so I think it could be done fairly quickly. Who has the knowhow? ~Asarlaí 10:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No decent editor is willing to put the effort into this now unless you can completely convince them that everybody here is happy with the change. Both Plastikspork and Stephen were willing but comments made by a certain person here blew that chance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to try again, but I would someone to summarise exactly what is to be changed. If it is just changing the backend to call {{Infobox settlement}}, I can generate a sandbox version without much additional information. However, if it means general reformatting, then I would need some more input as to what exact is to be done. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In short, the template should look almost identical but with some extra parameters and less whitespace. There seemed to be an agreement on the following:

• listing the type of settlement (village, town, city), altho I'm not sure where is best to put this
• listing the state – this would read State: [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] or State: [[United Kingdom]] ([[Northern Ireland]])
• an option to list the parish and the barony
• making it so that the coordinates are listed on one line (i.e. having the word "coordinates" and the numbers on a single line)
• making it so that the grid reference is listed on one line (i.e. having the words "Irish grid reference" and the code on a single line)

I believe O'Dea is working on the new maps.

If anyone has any other proposals, please add them here. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 01:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I had originally proposed. I'm not content for it to remain as it is. Should the template end up being kept that this change must happen. I think Asarlai you and most of the others agreed with the proposed changed, only Stephen's version was too much of a carbon copy of infobox settement and was missing some of the parameters like irish grid reference etc so evoked a strong response from one editor which completely put off Stephen and Plastik for wanting to have to deal with it. What I don't want to happen is for either of them to make another version and it being heavily criticised and rejected. I personally think infobox settlement is the way to go and surely it would be easier to programme a Irish grid Reference parameter into that and some others. But should the template be kept then I would like to see support here for the change that Asalai has suggested and I can actually resume with the task I had set out to accomplish (making the articles all consistent and adding cooridnates/maps/images.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as state is put into the infobox, and it retains the asthetics of the present infobox in use, i'm content enough with the above. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the aesthetics of the present infobox are superior, please take that to the talk page for {{Infobox settlement}}, and urge their adoption there. If you're correct, I don't doubt that people will be clamouring to adopt them. Whichever version is chosen, the most important thing, for the convenience of our readers, is consistency across Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need to delete the Ireland infobox. All that is needed for it is the addition of a few parameters. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't. Have you done as I advised? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it important "... for the convenience of our readers" that there is consistency across Wikipedia? Have there been petitions, complaints, letters to The Times, extreme and noticeable drops in users, etc ? Or is this just a case of some editors reading tealeaves? Fmph (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a case of some editors being professionals or practitioners in the field of web usability, and knowing that consistency of interface has great benefits; and inconsistencies disadvantages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the Ireland placebox much more user-frendly than {{Infobox settlement}}. On the Ireland placebox, the grey shading and separating lines make it much easier to read. There's a side-by-side comparison here. ~Asarlaí 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the present infobox is much more user-friendly, please take that to the talk page for {{Infobox settlement}}, and urge the design's adoption there. If you're correct, I don't doubt that people will be clamouring to adopt it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost every village in West Cork has the Infobox settlement. , e.g Baltimore, Clonakilty, Bantry, Dunmanway etc, and they've had it for as long as I can remember. The old Ireland template is more user friendly and still far more widespread. --Ire2500 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox place Ireland proposed for deletion

Dr Blofeld has proposed the Ireland placebox for deletion. [comment withdrawn]. ~Asarlaí 10:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, now thats sour grapes, and not even having the decency to inform any of us that he is proposing its deleition when we are discussing how to improve the thing. That is such bad faith and deplorable. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL, yeah as deplorable as the fact I had begun giving your stale Irish village articles a cleanup and development and was intent on coverage every village, adding infoboxes, coordinates and sources. Let's not forget how this all started... You had your chance, I waited months and still nothing was sorted. I even went out of my way try to keep the template and refactor it and you made a hash of seeing it through.. Not one of you has since done a single thing to help. I'm not going to tolerate your nonsense any longer, a job needs doing and right now you and your grey box is preventing development.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to deletion proposal, and new infobox parameter

I have made a case for retention of this infobox where the deletion proposal has been made. I also noted some parameters whose addition might be contemplated (some have already been mentioned), and I paste that section from my remarks here, for consideration:

Suggested additional parameters for {{Template:Infobox place Ireland}}

In any conversation about reforming {{Template:Infobox place Ireland}}, discussion could usefully examine which of the following missing locality-defining parameters might be added:

administrative county or city council barony city, urban district, town or village constabulary district sub-district district electoral division civil parish local electoral area nuts 3 region polling district parliamentary division poor law union townland or street

Some of these these parameters are taken from 1901 and 1911 Irish census forms. While some may no longer be used, they existed historically, so are pertinent to Irish place articles. — O'Dea (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ireland placebox deleted - where do we go from here?

The deletion discussion has ended and the result was "delete". So, what happens now? I suggest we go back to the format proposed by Stepheng3 in the above discussion (see here for examples).
By the way, I see that the Ireland placebox is still being shown—at what point will it be deleted? ~Asarlaí 17:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Asarlaí, I have an answer to your question. It will be deleted as would any other of this type of heavily used template, that is when it is fully replaced. And, the overwhelming consensus at the deletion discussion was that it be replaced by {{Infobox settlement}}. There is a note at the TfD page, see under "To review". It is classed as among: "Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted." What that means is that the template is complex and each page which uses it tends to use a variant, so care must be taken as information is transferred to the consensus replacement. Not exactly like snowflakes, but in my experience manually replacing IPI with IS on several pages, care must be used to transfer the information properly. I have been using a local perl script operated as a TextWrangler filter on my MacBook. With it I can review the transformations made and refine the script as needed. So far I have created two scripts, one for towns and villages and another for counties. The results are evident in what I have changed, each contains the same information as before with the slight enhancement of placing coordinates information at a specific scale, so that the drop down map available via the small inverted triangle in the coordinates displayed at the top of each page is consistent and logical. I think my results have been consistent and well-styled so far. It will not take long, and with the script it may eventually be something that can be done via a bot process. There are about 1700 pages which transclude the IPI; once development of this script is complete, someone can move it onto a bot fairly quickly. I will post the full scripts on the IPI talk page after I continue development tonight, for interested parties to review. I am not changing pages wholesale, in part to make sure that the reformatting is done faithfullly. If you look at my contribution history, on those pages you will see that each new box contains the information that was in the old IPI box. Infobox settlement is the consensus choice, and will also be the choice to use for the inevitable replacement of Infobox UK place, I'm confident of that. At any rate, the IPI template will not deleted until it is completely orphaned out of main space articles, which will not be overnight by any means. Sswonk (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

State versus Country

The new infobox ({{Infobox settlement}}), which has alredy been added to dozens of articles by Sswonk, calls the ROI and the UK a "country" rather than "sovereign state". I pointed Sswonk to this lengthy discussion, wher most of the editors involved favored using "state" as a compromize. Those editors included myself, RA, Bjmullan, Snowded and Scolaire. Mabuska and BritishWatcher eventually agreed to settle on it too.

After getting Sswonk's consent, I changed the new infoboxes to read [[Sovereign state|State]]: [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. However, after I made the changes, Sarah777 swiftly reverted them because the discussion "has no policy standing". So, it looks like we'll hav to discuss it again.

I'll repeat my argument here:

• "Country" is ambiguous because it can refer to a sovereign state, a non-sovereign political division, or a region associated with a certain people or certain characteristics. Those ar only the main definitions. You could call the ROI a country, you could call the island of Ireland a country, you could call Scotland a country and you could even call southwest England the West Country.
• "Sovereign state" is unambiguous and is the most accurat description of the ROI. ~Asarlaí 08:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Asarlaí above, "The new infobox ({{Infobox settlement}}), which has alredy been added to dozens of articles by Sswonk, calls the ROI and the UK "countries" rather than "sovereign states": that is an incorrect statement. The new infobox does not call the UK anything. All pages I have edited are about locations within the Republic. {{Infobox settlement}} (IS) has many flexible fields, in fact, and is in that respect very much unlike the {{Infobox place Ireland}} (IPI) which has been marked for deletion. The field names and formats of the fully protected (admin edit only) IPI were only available for change by a few admins who know template code technique. IS allows dozens of field titles and corresponding field info points. It has what are called "subdivisions", and the highest "subdivision" for a place in the Republic is the sovereign country itself. Thus, in the IS scenario places within Ireland the sovereign state can be and are encoded in the infobox with the highest subdivision type Country while places within Northern Ireland can and will be encoded in the infobox in a manner fitting and decided for them by editors of those pages. There is simply no reason not to call the Republic a "country", that is what it is and that is the term used throughout Wikipedia when describing the highest-level division among sovereign governments on Earth. The word used is country, and parochial concerns about what to call the components of the United Kingdom have zero bearing on places within the Republic of Ireland when places on the island are no longer being forced to share a single inflexible infobox. Good examples of the flexibility of IS can be found at Windsor, Ontario, Warsaw, and Newburgh, New York. The quote at the beginning of this paragraph makes it sound as though I have unilaterally created an inflexible infobox that forces the use of the word "Country" for all places on the island. Asarlaí, with respect that is simply not true and I hope this explains things a little better. I will not get into debating which term is less ambiguous when the discussion is started with the false premise that either one choice or the other needs to be made. Any term is available for use for UK (NI) places. Sswonk (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the new infobox hasn't yet been added to NI articles. That was my mistake. However, if it's being used as the new infobox for ROI counties (example County Donegal) then surely it'll hav to be the new infobox for NI counties too (example County Tyrone)? Also, I'm not accusing you of breaking any rules or going agenst any gidelines.

Anyway, that's not the main issue here. The issue is that the ambiguous term "country" is being used to refer to a sovereign state. Your pipelinking of it as [[Sovereign state|Country]] is an example of its ambiguity.

Infoboxes for ROI places and infoboxes for NI places ar now using two different definitions of "country". On ROI articles "country" means "sovereign state" while on NI articles "country" means "non-sovereign constituent part". Two definitions on one small iland. If we look at the Dublin infobox and then the Belfast infobox, they imply that the ROI and NI hav the same status.

Surely this needs to be dealt with. ~Asarlaí 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is no point to arguing over a false premise. The premise I am pointing to is that their is some sort of choice that needs to be made because both Northern Ireland and the Republic are on the same island. No choice needs to be made due to the flexibility of the Settlement (IS) infobox. The top level political entity of nearly every geographic infobox on Wikipedia is listed as "Country". There are debates and complexities that simply don't relate to the work I am doing; they involve the United Kingdom only. I don't want to get anywhere near that timeless matching of wits, over whether Wales is a country or principality, or if flagless NI should even be called a "country". Ireland or Éire exists on the List of sovereign states, which is often piped to the word Country in infobox field titles. To prove this usage to you, I have painstakingly compiled evidence of this so I won't be thought of as using weaselly speech here. First, I offer this table consisting of usage for the top level political entity field for the G20 and then 9 other countries. Please see the explanatory text.

In addition to that table, I also went to the article Member state of the European Union and clicked on the link to each of the 27 capitals of the members. Of those, in the infobox of 25 (Vienna, Sofia, Nicosia, Prague, Copenhagen, Tallinn, Helsinki, Paris, Berlin, Athens, Budapest, Dublin, Rome, Riga, Vilnius, Luxembourg, Valletta, Amsterdam, Warsaw, Lisbon, Bucharest, Bratislava, Ljubljana, Madrid and Stockholm) the field title Country is shown for the sovereign state. London uses Sovereign state which is common for UK articles as I stated in the text accompanying the table above. Brussels also uses "Sovereign state". At first I thought this might have something to do with the EU headquarters. However, I used Wikiblame and found it was added when the Brussels article underwent a merger with the outer region article, in the diff the editor explains he was adapting the infobox for the London article to the then new merged article for Brussels. So, then Aha! I saw where it came from, and why for example each of the articles for the Provinces of Belgium uses "Country" but some of the Belgium city articles use "Sovereign state". Those that use the latter have been copy pasted and adapted and ultimately can be sourced back to that one instance of borrowing the style at London.

So, you can see I am not merely using weasel words when I say nearly all Wikipedia settlement infoboxes outside the United Kingdom use "Country". Nearly all do, as do those I am doing for Ireland. I have learned a thing or two in the past from you Asarlaí, and I hope you can see that navel gazing and going on and on about this non-issue for another spell of longwinded days or weeks is not going to happen. Yes, for NI places the use of "Sovereign state: United Kingdom" and then "Country:" or "Constituent country:" or whatever works out followed by "Northern Ireland" may well be done when those infoboxes are converted. I know we can work together and please understand that this is all in good spirit. But really, using the word Country in these infoboxes I am doing is obvious, and is overwhelmingly and definitively the choice of all of the rest of Wikipedia outside of the United Kingdom. The shared border on the island does not require that both places must share the title disambiguation problem that only exists for one of them. Sswonk (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Sswonk. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Sswonk. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose rename User:Laurel Lodged to User:HMV. Snappy (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know which is more annoying: that you should plagiarise my little witticism or that you wouldn't have the balls to stand over a catty remark. Strikeout? Oh puhleeze. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be stretching it to say that your original remark was a "witticism". Seems you like dish it out but can't take it! The strike through was deliberate part of it, not a retraction. Also, please leave my genitalia out this exchange. Snappy (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take it as a compliment then that even my non witticisms are worthy of plagiarism. And isn't it rather the point of the retraction/non retraction that the genitalia were always out of it? Saucer of milk anyone? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"But really, using the word Country in these infoboxes I am doing is obvious, and is overwhelmingly and definitively the choice of all of the rest of Wikipedia outside of the United Kingdom."

Sswonk, don't you think that issues affecting the choice of these terms for the UK are relevant in some way here also? (Hint: All of Ireland was once a part of the UK and like England and Scotland, despite it's constitutional circumstances, is still commonly called a country.)

The manner in which you describe the UK's example here is as if it is exceptional (which it is) ... only the same exceptional circumstances apply to Ireland. The "exceptional" sense of country that is meant on UK and Ireland-related articles is of the kind defined by OED's here:

"The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc. With political changes, what were originally distinct countries have become provinces or districts of one country, and vice versa; the modern tendency being to identify the term with the existing political condition.

Now, before you go thinking that I am arguing in this instance that (all of) Ireland must be called a country in these infoboxes, I agree with you that "sovereign state" is what is meant by "country" in these info boxes (and that that is how most people would understand it). However, for so long as the UK infobox uses "country" to refer to the kind of entity that Ireland (the whole of Ireland) is then we have a problem. The idea of "country" in these two sets of infoboxes gets extremely muddled if they tell us that we cross into another "country" when we cross in to Northern Ireland ... where that new "country" is not the United Kingdom. Suddenly shifting the definition is a problem.

For my 2¢, the issues here would disappear if what was meant by "country" was applied properly. However, I am very unhappy with a circumstance where it is seen as right and proper that on the UK-related infobox one kind of thing is given as "country" (and even one kind of thing that is not) — but it is seen as POV pushing to suggest that the same definitions might apply on an ROI-realted infoboxes. That double standard is quite galling. --RA (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place on Category talk:Towns and villages in County Tipperary that might interest the forum. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is also a broader discussion so I'll take it here. It is not disputed that each of these categories also has links to other categories (e.g. Sport in Ireland, Transport in Ireland). This discussion is solely about the vaerious categories: Foo by county. A decision needs to be made. The choices are (A) they should only contain two sub-categories (i.e. Category:Foo in Northern Ireland by county and Category:Foo in the Republic of Ireland by county) or (B) they should, in addition to the above, also contain 32 or more sub-categories for each county. The tree structure is as follows:

• Category:Categories by country subdivision

• Category:Categories by county of Ireland

• Category:Buildings and structures in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Castles in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Education in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Media in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:People by county in Ireland which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Politics of Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Sport in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Geography of Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Parks in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Transport in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Roads in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Visitor attractions in Ireland by county which has no county categories, just the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:History of Ireland by county which has categories for 32 counties as well as the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Irish rugby union teams by county which has categories for 32 counties as well as the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Towns and villages in Ireland by county which has categories for 32 counties as well as the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Townlands of Ireland by county which has categories for 32 counties as well as the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.
• Category:Tourism in Ireland by county which has categories for 32 counties as well as the "by county" categories for RoI and NI.

My own preference is for (A)as it produces a cleaner, leaner tree with no duplication. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• B Both because the category structures do not have to be entirely streamlined to assist in finding content. In fact, for people who are not necessarily sure about which jurisdiction a county falls under, the structure exemplified by Category:Tourism in Ireland by county with both trees allows simplified navigation in that case, while still allowing navigation by country. Duplication is not a hindrance, it is nice to have leanness but not at all necessary in this case, so I wouldn't require method A. Sswonk (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• B in both. More than one way to navigate a category tree. Snappy (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This article was created today and needs serious attention. Namely:

• The section on Senator Norris needs to be carefully checked against sources for POV.
• Information on Helen Lucy Burke needs to be expanded and sourced.

There have been problems with unsourced statements, POV, breaches of WP:BLP and people losing tempers while editing.Autarch (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's literally "he says - she says". Her personal opinion of what she says he said - is that really a verifiable secondary source?86.42.203.50 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is missing. Someone make it. Richard Boyd Barrett had one before he was a TD.

Brid Smith is an Irish politician who is currently a Councillor for the Dublin South Central constituency. She is frequently cited in the Irish media.^[1][2]

Smith regularly participates in campaigns and protests. In 2001 she was an ATGWU shop steward and Secretary of the Campaign Against Partnership Deals.^[3] She was a spokesperson for the Anti-Bin Tax Campaign.^[4] She has addressed the crowd at demonstrations, such as the visit to Dublin by former British prime minister Tony Blair^[5] and the 2004 protests against the Iraq War.^[6] She has criticised health cuts implemented by the government at Cherry Orchard Hospital and organised a protest against Mary Harney on behalf of the Save Cherry Orchard Hospital Campaign.^[7][8] She opposed the Treaty of Lisbon.^[9] Smith was director of elections for the People Before Profit Alliance at the 2011 general election.^[10]

Why do you think that this local councillor is notabel? She did not run for parlement yet, something Barret did before getting elected. To me, city councillors or county councillors are not notabel if that is everything they have to offer. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, she fails WP:Politician and also fails WP:GNG. Just another local councillor of which there are over 1,600 in Ireland. Snappy (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

She's not as notable as List of $h*! My Dad Says episodes. LOve Wikipedia's GSOH.86.42.193.158 (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

When making notability claims, please refrain from the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. She has attended as few protests but thats not notability, she still fails WP:Politician and WP:GNG. Snappy (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys! I have three outstanding photo requests in the Dublin area:

• Transport House, 44 Kildare St., Dublin 2, Ireland
• Ryanair head office, Dublin Airport
• CityJet head office - Swords Business Campus, Balheary Road, in Swords, County Dublin, Republic of Ireland - Map

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be dropping by Kildare St. later today and will hopefully sort the first request. Anything else needed in that area? RashersTierney (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

'Transport House' done. Link at User's TP. RashersTierney (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish pirate radio still has no source or citations. It has mostly been edited by anonIPs but really needs an expert to review and add at least a few references, assuming one can find some books or other available sources. Perhaps Irish media: a critical history since 1922 By John Horgan will be of help if someone can access a copy. ww2censor (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Though the Dublin Philharmonic Orchestra isn't on WikiProject Ireland (yet), and is blocked, some might like to follow the talk page discussion.Red Hurley (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

PS you-all might be interested in Special:Contributions/Derek_Gleeson and some recent edits.Red Hurley (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'd guess the latest IP edits are him as well. I'm inclined towards removal of most of the unreferenced Activities section. Any suggestions? Fmph (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you also notice that Derek Gleeson is stated to be the Music Director & Conductor in this edit? So a serious conflict of interest exists. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In this edit to his talk page the IP appears to admit that he is the blocked editor Derek Gleeson. Shouldn't he be blocked forthwith? Scolaire (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's blocked currently. He was unblocked by the blocking admin. Fmph (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to be nice and he has provided some good sources. The DPO article is close to being acceptable now. I'll have another look tonight. Fmph (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I dropped a note here at the start of May about someone who is editing various Irish place and property articles to add claims that they are owned by Martin Breyer (aka, for some strange reason, Ciaran Brennan). (Who he? - Exactly) Anyway he returned last night on Lambay Island using an IP that geolocates to Mexico. As I say, he targets places, castles and stately old piles; last night he also seems to have claimed gas resources under Lambay. diff. He's probably going to start up this ould nonsense again; he got away with it for quite a while on one or two articles. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 11:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in my proposal here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea what sort of criteria would be used to decide if a "seanchaí" like Terence McShane is notable. If the subject might be notable could somebody give suggestions to the page creator (who has said they're still working on the page)? The article got tagged for a speedy deletion and I don't think it deserves that, but it does need help showing notability. Cloveapple (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Terence McShane is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence McShane if anyone has any suggestions for how notability in this field might be determined. Cloveapple (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless somebody with newspaper archive access looks it up in the Irish News or similar, it will be difficult. Nothing at all comes up on a Google search apart from that Folktrax page. Scolaire (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI the National Library of Ireland have release a whole raft of images on Flickr under a public domain license.

• The images can be see here

Also:

• An overview of the images is here
• Announcement of it is here

--RA (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the licencing is described as no known copyright restrictions but this licence page is not public domain licence but essentially a non-commercial one making it incompatible with wikipedia, however, that may be copyfraud. While many images are old enough to be in the public domain, some are from the Lawrence Collection, whose studio only closed in 1942 (I don't know the death date of the two Lawrence brothers) and some are from Independent Newspapers, so I suspect we should use caution and individually evaluated each image to ascertain its own age appropriate licence because Irish copyright extends for 70 years pma or a straight 70 years for anon images per commons:COM:L#Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite right: "If you are interested in high-quality reproductions, or commercial re-use of these images please contact Copying Services." Piff. --RA (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know when W.D. Hogan died? He took some of the most iconic pictures of the War of Independence and the Civil War. Scolaire (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add [6] to the Cork page but this [7] says Reproduction rights owned by National Library of Ireland how can the NLI own reproduction rights if it's 70 years old anon? Gnevin (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

As I already mentioned and I though explained well enough above it's called copyfraud; claiming copyright over material that is not under copyright. Many organisations do it but we need to determine the copyright status for ourselves. For instance File:Seaplanes at Foynes.jpg may well be ok as it it essentially a pseudo-anonymous image of a news organisation but images newer then 1941 whose photographer are identifiable are copyright for 70 years pma. Hogan was active between 1920-1935, so he would need to have died before 1941 for his images to be freely licenced now; his death need more research and I have not been able to find anything more. ww2censor (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hogan also did professional work for The Freeman's Journal and other national papers. Is it not possible that they are the copyright holders of some of these images, irrespective of when he died? RashersTierney (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that NL did an awful lot of reproduction of old imagery in recent years. I'd be very wary of using terms like copyfraud without evidence. I'm pretty sure that by the very act of reproduction, they are recreating copyright in the reproductions. Fmph (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not say they had committed copyfraud but that claiming copyright over images that are in the public domain is copyfraud. Many institutions do so most likely out of ignorance of copyright law, which can be rather trickly. All I was suggesting is that one need to be careful and not necessarily take the free licence statement as being entirely true for all images. ww2censor (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just rang the NLI and spoke to a nice guy but when ask how they owned the copyright he said they just did he came me his email, maybe someone with a better understanding of the law could help me draft an email? Gnevin (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)