Talk:List of baronies of Ireland

Tipperary errors

Eliogarty and Ikerrin are noted as being half baronies. This is untrue. Kilnamanagh (Lower and Upper) carry no notes even though they are in fact half baronies. Have the corresponding notes been placed in the wrong location? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

They are noted as being half-baronies in the Down Survey of the 1650s. Use of "half-barony" is inconsistent in the various sources cited. There is a tendency for an earlier source to use "half-barony" where a later one uses "barony". But not always. I suspect the various tidy-up acts, in particular the 1836 Grand Jury Act, may have recategorized previous "half baronies" as "baronies". Because I am uncertain I have not been categorical in the listing, merely noting a few instances. What is your specific source for Kilnamanagh Upper and Lower? jnestorius^(talk) 04:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Having endevoured to get an online version of the Down Survey, I had to give up in despair. If you have such access or can quote from a hard copy, I'd be obliged if you'd do so. I can only go on local histories, produced by local, amateur hostorians. None mentions that either Ikerrin or Eliogarty is a half barony. Quite the opposite. All evidence points to the integrity of the territories even in pre-Norman times. Tipperary is a zero-sum territory and the Ikerrin "peninsula" is bounded on 3 sides by other counties. Assuming that ancient sub-divisions respected county bounds, Ikerrin then had only one place to expand - into Eligarty. Are you suggesting that part of Eliogarty was once part of Ikerrin? If so, which part? Where did their mysterious twin come from and go to? Or are you saying that Ikerrin and Eliogarty are themselves the twins? If so, what was their original joint name? As for Kilnamangh, the Reference section of Kilnamanagh Lower gives the citation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying the Down Survey maps called them half baronies. Nothing more. "ikerin halfe bar" "half eloeogurty" jnestorius^(talk) 05:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Waterford - Glenahiry and Upper Third

I'm not happy that the comment "Partly in Sough Tipperary" has been added to these baronies. From the debate on the former article, this claim was at the very least disputed. I was not aware that a concensus had been arrived at that declared them to be in South Tipperary. I think that the comments should be withdrawn until such a concensus has been achieved. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added references. jnestorius^(talk) 09:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Placenames database is very useful. I've made this point elsewhere. It is not infallible however. It contains errors. The Glenahiry issue is one such error. From my research, it seems to stem from the civil parish of St. Mary’s. The database lists it in both the barony of “Iffa and Offa East” and “Glenahiry”. The “Iffa and Offa East” barony lists 17 townlands in that civil parish. The “Glenahiry” barony lists 14 townlands in that civil parish. They include Knocklucas, Knockagriffin, Croan Lower, Croan Upper, Glenary, Glendalough, Glennagad, Lyranearla, Monacallee, Poulboy, Pioulnagunoge, Scrothea West, Scrothea East, Spa. Crucially, the “Glenahiry” barony of Waterford spells the St. Mary’s civil parish as "St. Mary’s, Clonmel". This points to the source of the error. From the 1911 census of the National Archives, you can see that all of the above townlands are listed as belonging to St. Mary's (Waterford). I would place greater trust in a state document personally filled in by persons and checked by supervisors on the ground at the time than in a database cobbled togther from disperate sources. The Tipperary listing of Glenahiry should be struch out.

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Waterford/St__Mary_s/

Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are quite right. Thanks for taking the trouble on this. A more modern reference is Electoral (Amendment) Act 2009, which shows the relevant townlands in the Dáil constituency of Tipperary South but the county of Waterford. jnestorius^(talk) 14:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there were townlands transferred from Waterford to Tipperary in 1898; namely the urban sanitary districts of Clonmel and Carrick-on-Suir; (ref.) which would still be in the Waterford baronies, whose borders were unaffected. E.g. the townland of Greenan (in the Electoral District of Clonmel West, Urban and the civil parish of Inishlounaght) is now in the county of South Tipperary (S.I. 847/2005) but still in the barony of Glenahiry (logainm) Some townlands were split, including Carrickbeg; the OSI map viewer shows this by overlaying the modern county boundary and the 19th-century 6-inch map's townland boundary. jnestorius^(talk) 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the mere fact that the aforementioned placenames order for County Tipperary includes the baronies of Glenahiry and Upper Third is fairly conclusive. jnestorius^(talk) 14:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Take the example of Carrickbeg. You say that it was split (having previously been entirely within County Waterford, I suppose). The act of splitting it meant that the 2 halves were now in two different counties. Would it not then be accurate to say that the act of splitting it also severed the link with the Waterford barony? Would it not be more accurate to say that the act of splitting it also incorporated it into Iffa and Offa East? Is it not analogous to the creation of the half baronies of Kilnamanagh Upper and Lower. You would not now describe Borrisoleigh as belonging to the the barony of Kilnamanagh. so why would you describe that part of carricgbed that now lies in Tipperary as being in the barony of Glenahiry? In effect, Glenahiry became a half barony (or a 1 centile, 99centile barony). Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Would it not then be accurate to say that the act of splitting it also severed the link with the Waterford barony? Would it not be more accurate to say that the act of splitting it also incorporated it into Iffa and Offa East?" Well, no; that's really the nub of the issue. A barony is not implicitly split if a county boundary runs through it; the act of splitting it must be explictly done. Prior to 1898, when land changed county it changed barony too, not ipso facto but rather because the legislation that made the one change made the other change as well. From 1898, legislation (Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council, Statutory Instruments, etc) has transferred land between counties, poor law unions, electoral districts, etc; but it hasn't bothered keeping the baronies in synch. That's the point. There are a few townlands that are now in the county of Tipperary that were formerly in the county of Waterford and the barony of Glenahiry-W (to temporarily misname it). I am claiming that they are still in the same barony of Glenahiry-W; you are suggesting they are in a new barony of Glenahiry-T (again, misnaming it for hopefully obvious reasons). I think your claim is very unlikely, but if you have external evidence I am quite willing to be corrected. I can offer the following from the 1898 Act, §18 (3):

Where a barony or any other area liable under any guarantee or other liability is divided between two or more counties or county districts the foregoing provisions shall apply to the adjustment of any guarantee, or other liability between the divided parts of the barony or area affected as the case may be, and such adjustment may be made to vary in any manner in which the amount of the guarantee or liability may vary.

The use of the description "divided parts of the barony" doesn't suggest to me that these parts are new baronies or half-baronies. It's true that logainm lists separate baronies, but I think that's an artefact of the hierarchical structure of the database rather than a deliberate reflection of legal separateness. jnestorius^(talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the Carrigbeg example. When it was split, were the divided parts given new names (e.g. Carrigbef-T and Carrigbed-W)? It's more likely that they were not re-named. So this leaves us with a townland of Carrigbeg in Tipperary and a Carrigbeg in Waterford. So far so good. But the thing that we're agreed on is that the only useful present day function of baronies is in land registry admin. Specifically, they're useful entities to distinguish between townlands of the same name in the same county. Thus you can speak of the townland of Grange in the barony of Eliogarty in the county of Tipperary as distinct from the townland of Grange in the barony of Ikerrin in the county of Tipperary. But with a split Carrigbeg, you're left with the situation of speaking of the townland of Carrigbeg in the barony of Glenahiry and also a different townland of Carrigbeg in the same barony of Glenahiry. This defeats the purposes of maintaining the baronies if you reject the de facto splitting of the barony (post 1898) and insist on a de jure non splitting. This is just not good common sense.

It's may also be worth considering whether the 1898 legislation specifically forbids such common sense, de facto splitting of baronies or whether it is simply silent on the matter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the only useful function of baronies is in land registry. Further, there is no prohibition on multiple townlands in the same barony and county having the same name; there are two Ballybegs in Trughanacmy, and two more in Corkaguiny: one north of Ventry and the other east of Dingle. Look at all the townlands in the S.I. 847/2005 called "Graigue", distinguished by various combinations of Electoral District, County District, and Parish. jnestorius^(talk) 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: I have undone this. Per above and 1901 townland index p.973, there is one barony of Leitrim shared between Galway and Clare. jnestorius^(talk) 12:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jnestorius: Then why does Logainm list Clare as the sole county? See here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• "It's true that logainm lists separate baronies, but I think that's an artefact of the hierarchical structure of the database rather than a deliberate reflection of legal separateness. jnestorius(talk) 17:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)"
  • Compare Maps 120 and 121 here. jnestorius^(talk) 10:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• What an interesting document. Will digest it more fully later. To the matter in hand: I'm aware from other maps of the iron clamp linking the 2 baronies. It happens in other counties also. However, might that not be in reference to their origin as opposed to their current (if they can be said to be current at all) usage? I saw nothing in the notes to the map to say that the clamped baronies were to be treated as a single, unified barony. The notes say that baronies are used to divide counties: how can they fulfill that function if their borders extend beyond the counties? Is it not similar to the half-barony situation? Does Rathdown straddle both Wicklow and Dublin? Or do 2 half-baronies exist, one in each county which may be taken effectively, if not de jure, to be separate baronies? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• If it were in reference to their origin then why are the Rathdowns, Fores, and Ballymores not clamped? Clamping in maps is used for current union, not past origin. See also Maps 27, 45, 67, 68. jnestorius^(talk) 10:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oh all right then. It will need to be renamed though. It can't just say "County Galway barony". Suggestions? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it needs renaming. Rather than continuing this discussion here, check if there are other baronies with a similar issue and raise a WP:Multi move for all together. jnestorius^(talk) 09:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Kildare details

I've derived North & South Salt. But this: "Offaly (or Ophaly) East Uíbh Fhailí Thoir[i 13] Divided by 1807[23] 47029 Named after Uí Failghe; also the name of County Offaly to the west / Offaly (or Ophaly) West" ...is a common mistake, lazily re-translating the English translation of Offaly. The Norman cantred around Naas was Offelan, which derived from the Ui Fáeláin clan that owned north-east Kildare, and not from the Uí Failghe that became Co. Offaly.Red Hurley (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Uí Failghe and Ophelan are indeed different, but Offaly East is part of the former. Irish Historical Studies 1959 p.181 says there were four Norman cantreds in Kildare, viz. Offelan, Offaly, Omurethy, and Leix; "Offelan is now represented by the baronies of North and South Salt, Ikeathy and Oughterany, and Clane". Logainm.ie gives Uíbh Fhailí Thoir as the Irish for Offaly East. jnestorius^(talk) 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on that. Offelan was further east and Offaly (the barony) derived from Uí Failghe to the west. Just to confuse matters, Lord Offaly, the original FitzGerald title up to 1316 (see John FitzGerald, 1st Earl of Kildare), derived from Offelan.Red Hurley (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What to link to

I think every link in the "Name" column should be to the barony article, even if that's a redlink, and not to the settlement that gives the barony its name. The settlement can be mentioned and linked in the "Notes" column. There is a good argument for combining a civil parish article with the article on its eponymous town (if it has one: that's the standard in articles on England, but parishes are more coherently matched to towns than in Ireland, mainly because the church is established). But baronies are too much bigger for the same single-article technique to be more than a stopgap measure for them (Possible exceptions for the ex-corporate-county baronies). If someone has added info about barony Foo to the settlement article Foo, then I suggest at a minimum

1. create Foo (barony) as a redirect {{R with possibilities}} to Foo, and
2. link to Foo (barony), not Foo, in this list article

jnestorius^(talk) 18:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think best, the only reason I changed a couple to the town of same name is because in those articles it mentions that barony, even if only in a sentence or a paragraph or whatever. Some articles do deal/cover (in depth or scantly) towns, parishes, and baronies or same name. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Titles of barony articles

There was some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 12#Barony naming convention about naming conventions for barony articles. My opinion is that the style should be as follows, in descending order of priority:

1. Bname (e.g. Eliogarty)
2. Bname, County Cname (e.g. Rathdown, County Dublin) or Bname (County Cname) (e.g. Clanwilliam (County Tipperary)
3. Bname (barony) (e.g. Carrickfergus (barony))
4. Bname (County Cname barony) (e.g. Newcastle (County Dublin barony), distinct from Newcastle, County Dublin and Newcastle (County Wicklow barony))

Comments:

• In practice #3 will be more common than #2, because the thing most likely to need disambiguating is the settlement which gives its name to the barony, and will therefore be the maintopic of "Bname, County Cname". (e.g. Carrickfergus, County Antrim) Nevertheless I think #2 should have formal priority.
• I'm not sure whether the #2 convention would be Placename, County Cname or Placename (County Cname). I prefer the former, which is the standard for settlements, but for natural features the latter seems to be more common at present. Of course baronies are not settlements or natural features, but as manmade creations seem closer to the former.

In any case, once a convention is agreed, I propose to move articles appropriately and rename all the red-links in this list article. jnestorius^(talk) 11:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative conventions I'm happy to go with either (A) or (B).

(A) Barony of Bname (e.g. Barony of Castleknock before latest re-naming)

(A1) Barony of Bname (County Cname) where more than 1 barony of the same name exists (e.g. Barony of Bantry (County Cork) as distinct from the Barony of Bantry in County Wexford.) This avoids the need for further disambiguators as no county has 2 baronies of the same name.

(B) A descending order of priority consisting of:

(B1) Bname (e.g. Eliogarty)

(B2) Bname (barony) (e.g. Carrickfergus (barony))

(B3) Bname (barony, County Cname) (e.g. Newcasle (barony, County Dublin). The "type" should have precedence over the "where". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The previous discussion had already settled on Bname (barony) in preference to Barony of Bname. Your B proposal requires B3 for my #2 as well as my #4: I think Rathdown (barony, County Dublin) and Clanwilliam (barony, County Tipperary) are unnecessarily verbose. jnestorius^(talk) 09:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A link to this "previous discussion" would be useful. However, I agree that "Bname (barony)" is perferable to "Barony of Bname", because "Bname" is always going to be the search term, and also that "Rathdown (barony, County Dublin)" just looks ugly. Scolaire (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Link was above, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 12#Barony naming convention jnestorius^(talk) 11:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So it was. I beg your pardon. Scolaire (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The previous discussion had already settled on Bname (barony) in preference to Barony of Bname. Your B proposal requires B3 for my #2 as well as my #4: I think Rathdown (barony, County Dublin) and Clanwilliam (barony, County Tipperary) are unnecessarily verbose. jnestorius^(talk) 09:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jnestorius. Yes. The previous discussion did not agree with (A) but I thought that I'd throw it out there anyway. I'm not in favour of your #2 proposal precisely because it violates the agreement that you mention. That is, it omits having barony in parentheses as a type disambiguator. In the case of Bantry, for example, the town would have precedence. So a type distinction would then be necessary (e.g. Bantry (barony)). But it gets even murkier because their are two such baronies, therefore a second place disambiguator is necessary (e.g. Bantry (barony, County Cork) and Bantry (barony, County Wexford). The second disambiguator would only be needed in a handful of cases. In most other case, the type would suffice. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either myself or @Mabuska: understood the previous agreement to require "(barony)" in all cases of disambiguation; merely that "Bname (barony)" was preferred over "Barony of Bname" when those were the options. Mabuska said " In fact unless there is a town called Clanwilliam in County Tipperary then Clanwilliam, County Tipperary doesn't need to state barony at all as nothing else can be confused for it as the other Clanwilliams will be Clanwilliam, County Limerick and Clanwilliam whatever."

To clarify my proposal: the Cork barony of Bantry would be under #4, not #2 (and not #3 either), for the reasons you explain. The distinction between #2 and #3 is brought out by e.g. Barrymore; should it be Barrymore (barony) or Barrymore, County Cork? My proposal favours the latter, but if you argue for the opposite, then the following revised precendence might be agreeable:

1. Bname (e.g. Eliogarty)
2. Bname (barony) (e.g. Carrickfergus (barony))
3. Bname, County Cname (e.g. Rathdown, County Dublin) or Bname (County Cname) (e.g. Clanwilliam (County Tipperary)
4. Bname (County Cname barony) (e.g. Newcastle (County Dublin barony), distinct from Newcastle, County Dublin and Newcastle (County Wicklow barony))

I also think "(County Cname barony)" is more natural than "(barony, County Cname)" (Or even Bname, County Cname (barony).) jnestorius^(talk) 16:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My one and only personal preference is Bname (barony) for disambiguation as that follows the Wikipedia standards for disambiguation better than the other suggestions above. It is the preference I used when creating all but 1 of the barony articles for Northern Ireland over the past few years. It is pointless mentioning the county unless of course there is another barony of the same name in a different county. I think "Barony of Foo" whilst rolling of the tongue better is not the best way for disambiguation. Personally I can't remember a prior consensus, I just followed my preference based on Wikipedia policy. Maybe it was formed by that discussion mzybe not. I can't remember.

For a County Londonderry example we have a barony and townload called Keenaght (curiously not in the barony of same name). They both disambiguate fine as Keenaght (barony) and Keenaght (townland). Mabuska ^(talk) 18:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at the previous discussion and I see I was at the forefront of it. Looking at it I must say the conclusion (did we reach one?) we reached is probably the best though it appears I proposed a solution and no-one objected to it afterwards yet we have it in the IMOS. Personally I prefer using (barony) yet as far as I can remember I only used that for places in a county where there was already somewhere called that i.e. Keenaght (townland) and Carrickfergus based on the exact same arguments I had in that discussion. No barony name is repeated in Northern Ireland unless it is something like Strabane Lower and Strabane Upper but then there is no need to disambiguate. My personal preference also doesn't take into account multiple baronies of the same name situated in different counties yet I've not had to deal with any such baronies at the moment if I can remember correctly. Yet the Clanwilliam thing Jnestorious quoted would work fine - unless it is a barony that shares the name of a place in that county which I realise is the issue Jnestorious is raising. It is a puzzle now. The "Bname (County Foo barony)" does seem to be the most appropriate for these instances. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Although both Laurel and Mabuska have stated this is in the WP:IMOS, I could not find anything relevant there, except a link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), whose "Disambiguation" section makes the same points as me, i.e.

• that administrative division (County Cname) is preferred to generic (barony) as a disambiguator.
• no firm guidance on Bname, County Cname vs Bname (County Cname)

jnestorius^(talk) 12:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was from the way you guys were talking. Can you quote me the passage where it states its preference over tbe brackets? "Carrickfergus (barony)" makes more sense than "Carrickfergus, County Antrim" when we already have "Carrickfergus" in that county. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Anybody just stumbling upon "Carrickfergus, County Antrim" would most likely assume that it referred to the town. Only saddos like us with arcane interests would assume that an all-but-defunct administrative division was in mind. So while technically a disambiguator, it would probably fail WP:Common criteria. That's why the type disambiguator in parentheses is preferable for all non-unique baronies IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Can you quote me the passage where it states its preference over the brackets: here it is: "Generic parenthetical disambiguating tags as used for most Wikipedia articles are used only occasionally for geographic names (as in Wolin (town), where no regional tag would be sufficient to distinguish the town from the island of Wolin)."
• I think we are still talking at cross purposes about which disambiguator applies when. I refer you both back to my earlier comment:

In practice #3 will be more common than #2, because the thing most likely to need disambiguating is the settlement which gives its name to the barony, and will therefore be the maintopic of "Bname, County Cname". (e.g. Carrickfergus, County Antrim) Nevertheless I think #2 should have formal priority.

There is a general principle of disambiguation that you don't use a disambiguator that fails to resolve the ambiguity. That is why I list 3 different disambiguators: sometimes the preferred one will not do. The cases you mention are precisely those where recourse would be made to a lower-listed disambiguator. jnestorius^(talk) 14:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

jnestorius^(talk)

I can see where you are coming from, however I don't think you can give #2 precedence over #3 as it depends on context, and that if anything they should have equal standing if we are to be precise about order. If anything we should state that "(barony)" is the primary preference for a barony that shares a name with a place in the county that it is in, i.e. Carrickfergus or Keenaght. For places that don't, but there are one or more baronies that share the same name then of course ", County Foo" makes most sense. For a case of both then as you suggested "(County Foo, barony)" seems good. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see where ye are going with this but it ignores WP:Common. No barony should have a name, even with a disambiguator, that would leave readers with the impression that it was the common-most thing being searched. This is the case with "Carrickfergus, County Antrim". It makes no mention of the fact that it is a barony. Nothing in J's hierarchy would force it to mention that fact. This is just wrong. It should be forced to take on the type disambiguator. The general rule for geography should not be followed for near defunct entities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed as in all technicality baronies are geo-political units not an actual physical entity such as a settlement or river or hill etc. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

For the last time, Laurel, I am not suggesting that "Carrickfergus, County Antrim" should be the barony. "Carrickfergus, County Antrim" should and does point to the town. The barony is and should be at "Carrickfergus (barony)". That is true under my proposal; #1 and #2 are inadequate so it falls through to #3. Why do you think I botherewd putting #3 and #4 in my list at all, if I wanted everything to fall under #2? jnestorius^(talk) 12:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I mis-interpreted your intention around Carrickfergus - sorry. No need to be so tetchy. Our sole remaining point of difference then is your #4 vs my B3. It's probably a subjective judgement call. B3 still gets my vote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

B3 and Jnestorious' "(County Foo barony)" both seem alright to me, though Jnestorius's rolls of the tongue better. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I've moved the few Barony of Foo articles to Foo (barony) and updated the links in the table (both the blue links to the moved pages and the many more redlinks). jnestorius^(talk) 14:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)