User talk:Iveagh Gardens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removing brackets from dates

Please stop unlinking the dates in Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. The links are there to enable autoformatting: see WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking. Wdfarmer (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense then. They just seemed a bit superfluous in the context of the article and there was no response on the discussion page when I did the first time and left a note. But that's fine in that case. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm learning too, and may have corrected you too quickly. Now I see that implementing full autoformatting by including years in each date (which would be required to give a proper display if a user had chosen YYYY-MM-DD in their Wikipedia user preferences) would make this table much too wordy. I've compromised by removing the years except where needed for clarity in the Alabama section, but that still leaves it too wordy. It looks like the rest of the article compromises more by using forms like "January 1-5, 2007". I'll let this settle out for a while with comments from other users; see Talk:Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Linking dates. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

name of fine gael

i understand that fine gael name is used in english. i do not delete a name of fine gael and i didn't left translation only. if rest of parties names' are translated i don't mind to explanate what fine gael means.

I've explained this here, Template_talk:Members of the European Council#Name of Irish Parties. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Irish parties

I have one more question. I've seen that leader of Fianna Fail is as well leader of Fianna Fail in NI. Is party in NI and Ireland "one" party or two parties? If there are two parties it probably means that Martin is also a British citizen.

No he's not! Fianna Fáil has a very low level organisation in Northern Ireland, and hasn't contested any elections there; their registration to contest elections there is an aspirational thing really. Micheál Martin is from Cork, a city in the south-west of Ireland. But even Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Féin, from Belfast in Northern Ireland, wouldn't consider himself a British citizen, having only an Irish passport. I appreciate this can be complicated to an outsider! --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So leaders of party may be the same on North and South nevertheless legally for e.g. Sinn Fein differs from Sinn Fein in NI just like in Croatia exist HDZ and in BiH HDZ BiH party. I know that commonwealth and Irish citizen have a special status in the UK such a opportunity to serve in Army but I didn'y know that about political parties.

It's different to the army and voting rights situation though, which is more of an historic legacy. Fianna Fáil only recently decided to organise north of the border, and had to meet the same requirements as any other party there; it wasn't an automatic thing. The same rules would apply to them as to a group of French people in London who wanted to register to contest elections there for the UMP. Sinn Féin was first founded in 1905, before our independence from the United Kingdom in 1922, and partition of the country. SF has always been the party most committed to a united Ireland, to the extent of a terrorist campaign through the paramilitary IRA. Their leader since 1983, Gerry Adams, is currently a TD for Louth in Dáil Éireann, but until 2011 was an MP for West Belfast in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. So it's the same organisation, unlike HDZ. Check out History of Sinn Féin for a more detailed understanding. In the case of the Greens, they had been separate organisations, registered in the separate jurisdictions, but recently voted to merge, mainly in acknowledgment of the universal nature of environmental issues. Historically, the Labour Party also contested elections in the North, but haven't since Gerry Fitt (later to found the Social Democratic and Labour Party) left in 1964. --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation!

Talkback

Hello, Iveagh Gardens. You have new messages at Wikipedia:JSTOR.
Message added 15:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Titles of peers

Hello! I have noticed that you have made edits recently to some articles dealing with members of the peerage. I would like to ask, why have you removed definite article "The" from peers' titles? --Editor FIN (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

While including the definite article may be the full formal style in addressing a peer, particularly in writing, it is not something that is generally standard in lists including peers. For example, see the list of Lord Chancellors on the page of the former Department of Constitutional Affairs or the list of peers on the House of Lords page. In fact, based on my own experience of studying history and law, it looks distinctly unusual to include it. In long lists in tables, it doesn't add further information to include it for each and every peer, and in tables, it is preferable where possible to have information on a single line. In some of these cases, I've been adding additional information that will take up extra space, such as the year a peer entered the House of Lords, and the definite article immediately struck me as particularly superfluous. Of course, Wikipedia is not required to follow the same style as other publications, but I just don't see the benefit here. I hope all that makes sense! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for an answer. I think that we should look the question on whtether or not to use the definite article case to case basis. In some cases, there is more benefit than harm of using it. For example, it would be better that lists on recipients of an honour to include the definite article, because formal styling of peers might interest readers who read articles and lists on honours. It could also be natural to use the definite article, if post-nominal letters are inluded in a list. Additionally, if a list, like a list of office-holders, includes also courtesy peers, the definite article is useful in distincting substantive and courtesy peers. But I agree that some lists, like Members of the House of Lords, which is a political article on it's nature and do not include any courtesy peers, can list peers without definite articles, especially if it's pragmatic for the use of space. As a third option, some Wikipedia lists use name and title format for peers. That is also mentioned as an option in WP:PEER. --Editor FIN (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your own swift response too! My interest in these matters generally includes only the legal and political, rather than the peerage per se, but I can certainly see on pages relating to the peerage the formal style and title is preferable. I'm not sure of its merits of lists of office-holders though, as even there, whether they held the title in their own right or by courtesy in not at issue in the list. Of recent lists, consider Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 5th Marquess of Salisbury in Leader of the House of Lords. Is it an additional useful reference on this page that Viscount Cranborne was a courtesy title, and The Marquess of Salisbury a title he later held in his own right? I have an open mind on this, but the list even there isn't about the peerage, but to list succinctly who held the office. Thanks though for referring me to WP:PEER, a useful resource I hadn't seen before! --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the distinction between substantive and courtesy peers is not a matter of significant importance in a list like Leader of the House of Lords. But I think that there would be minor benefits and arguably not any harm of adding the definite article for substantive peers. That could also give a clue to some readers that a courtesy peer, like Viscount Cranborne, would have been known by another title in his later life and they could look for further information on the biography. That might enhance recognizability of those peers. But I would consider using the name and title format instead in a historical list of office-holders, which is also mildly recommended by WP:PEER in those cases. That format would differentiate holders of same hereditary peerage better, if, for example, father and son have held the same office, and inclusion of names would make some peers more recognizable, if they are better known by their names than by their titles. That is often the case, if a peer previously held cabinet posts as a commoner, for example. --Editor FIN (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

To my eye, adding full name and title in each case makes it actually more difficult to read, and find a note such as (previously as Lord John Russell) easier to read. This is why I changed it on those lists which I started on, such as Lord President of the Council. Having said that, I'd acknowledge that the format on List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, because of the use of bold, line spacing, and perhaps we should aim to have all lists of British office-holders to this high standard.

New Wikiproject!

Hello, Iveagh Gardens! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Syriac Maronite Church

Regarding your move of Maronite Church to Syriac Maronite Church: you said you moved it to the full name, yet the article says the full official name is Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch. Why the move to the shorter version, but not the (apparently) common short version that was used? —C.Fred (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: That's a fair question. A better note might perhaps have been that Syriac Maronite Church gives at least consistent format, when compared to the other Eastern Catholic Churches. Take Syriac Catholic Church as the closest there in name, but indeed all others in the list. Syriac Maronite Church is to my mind both long enough and short enough as the page title. Though for clarity, I'd have no objection to Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch as the page title, it just seems longer than necessary to convey immediate information. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Consistency is good. I'm on board there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was this not discussed as a page move first? WP:COMMONNAME, not "consistent format", is the Wikipedia standard, and there is no other Maronite Church except this one; it doesn't need disambiguation. This is a controversial move, in more ways than one, that should be discussed on the article talk page instead, per WP:RM#CM. Most Maronites are going to resent an assertion that "Syriac" is a the common name for their denomination, particularly considering that there is also the Syriac Catholic Church, and that Lebanese Catholics are regularly at odds with the influence of Syria. Also, there was already a move discussion 11 years ago, Talk:Maronite Church/Archive 1#Title, with no hint that anyone would consider "Syriac" in the title. --Closeapple (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Closeapple: My apologies. I was doing private research in the matter, and noticed what I perceived as a discrepancy. Similarly, I'd have thought, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is commonly known simply as the Melkite Church, and doesn't need disambiguation, and thought that the Maronite Church should be similarly be named in the longer format in its title. However, I can accept the controversies that go with the subject matter and the area, and am ultimately more than happy to defer here. I'd note though, that as the name of the church itself, as given within the introduction itself, it doesn't seem like a POV. I also kept it as Maronite within short titles in links elsewhere. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems fair enough: The official name should be in the introductory sentence. (It looks like there is a lot of name confusion among some of those Eastern Catholic denominations: Not only do several of them have "Syriac" in the name, but 4 of them each claim a separate Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, but the Syrian Orthodox Church on top of that, even the Latin Church had one until the 1950s.) --Closeapple (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

John le Carré

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on John le Carré, has introduced material that we consider controversial.
Due to this, your edits have been reverted.
When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the changes.
Changes such as these must be discussed before acceptance. Read & follow Wikipedia's WP:BRD.  Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 12:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: thanks for your comment. There was a discussion started by another editor on John le Carré's talk page, but it had been unanswered for more than a year, so on making the change, I had good reason to think the same would be the response with my own had I so started it! I'm happy to continue the discussion there though. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 12:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A proposal on the merger (from User:DemocraticSocialism)

Hello! I see that you were involved in the debate over whether or not to merge the List of Roman emperors and List of Byzantine emperors articles, an I noticed you support the merger. I also support it, but I want to merge the articles and name the new article "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors" (I added the word "Byzantine" to appease those who oppose the merger), and I've been going around trying to get support. Will you support this noble compromise attempt? Please write back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@DemocraticSocialism: Thanks for your suggestion to resolve it, and it appreciate the nobility of the compromise. However, I have to say that I find the proposed title unappealing for a classic and canonical list as the Roman Emperors. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you find it unappealing? (from User:DemocraticSocialism)

Deviation column

Hi, what's this Deviation column you added in Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland? Deviation from what? And why isn't it explained in the article? Spleodrach (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Spleodrach:, it's the deviation from the overall national result. It sorts in the same way as Yes/No percentage, but with a different emphasis. In a narrow referendum, showing Yes constituencies in green shows the range, but less so in a referendum like the 13th where all but three approved. No problem at all adding a note, to that article and to other articles where I'd added the column (won't have time just this evening, but can do so by the end of the week). —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, please add a note when you can. Spleodrach (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving categories

Hi, when you move a category, you have to update the articles manually, e.g. Category:Historic Dáil constituencies is currently empty. Spleodrach (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I had thought a bot might look after that! I'll look after that in a piecemeal way over the coming days. -Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Spleodrach: Thanks for looking after those, after I'd made that start. I see I should use the WP:HC function for this if it arises again. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving election articles

Hi, I see you have moved the election articles in accordance with the new policy. Do leadership elections come under these guidelines? e.g. Should Fianna Fáil leadership election, 2011 and Fine Gael leadership election, 2017 be moved to the new format? Spleodrach (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Spleodrach: Yes, they do come under the guideline, and should be moved. Cheers, Number 57 16:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Spleodrach (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve 1950 United Kingdom general election in Northern Ireland

Hello, Iveagh Gardens,

Thanks for creating 1950 United Kingdom general election in Northern Ireland! I edit here too, under the username Britishfinance and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Excellent stub, would be great to add one more source to it? thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback @Britishfinance! I have one other source which corroborates vote totals for these constituencies, which I will be able to cite in the coming days. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be worth doing as these are really high quality stubs (tables, info boxes, linking etc). There is an argument to add a little paragraph/section on notable events on the election to encourage other editors to expand? However, great work. Britishfinance (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Housing Rights & Reform Alliance

Hi IG, you really should do more checking before creating new articles. It happened for the Divorce referendum, and now with the Housing Rights & Reform Alliance article. This was created on 10 March 2019, and now you have created your version today at Housing Rights and Reform Alliance. It takes less than a minute to do a search and would prevent having to merge duplicate articles later on. Spleodrach (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You're completely right! With the divorce referendum, they were a day apart, and I had started working on it before the other page was published. This one, as you say was a few weeks old. I'd got caught out because it was an orphan. I'm not saying that as an excuse, but in explanation. Editors creating new pages should also make sure to integrate it into the rest of the project, after three weeks it should probably have been added to the templates and the main page. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Iveagh Gardens. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL on 2019 European Parliament election

Hi Iveagh. I think there are a few points showing that the table I removed constitutes crystal-balling: (1) we do not know if and when Brexit will happen for sure, (2) we do not know if after Brexit the EU Council will decide in favor of the so-called "post-Brexit" apportionment of seats, or whether it will keep the Parliament like it is without the British seats, and (3) these changes will possibly happen in months (at least), so we cannot predict the group composition of the EP at that time (MEPs are not new to defecting their previous groups). There are also some consistency problems, for example some of the "new" seats will be assigned to parties which at the moment are not in the EP (e.g. the PVV from the Netherlands), and for those parties we can only make a guess about their group (even well-sourced, but still a guess) but we cannot be totally sure. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie92. I see your arguments, and perhaps the table needs refining. I could be wrong, but is it not agreed that on the date the UK leaves, these duly elected MEPs will take their seats? That's what reports here and here indicate. The +/- figures relate to the figures as they exist on Brexit day; I have not, for example, attempted to work out the resulting composition figures for the groups. Even if Brexit never happens, it is a notable piece of information in the overview of this European election that these were elected, even if they never become MEPs. This is not an attempt to be a statement of what will happen, but of what did happen when these 27 were elected, if not elected to take a seat, but only elected as shadow Brexit MEPs; maybe I could remove the UK row and the tot up? You do have a point about the PVV; perhaps they merit a separate column for Other parties? --Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I could not find an official source confirming that the plan is to get back the missing seats after Brexit happens, but I think one could trust the sources you cited. So if we want to assume this is true (and we should reference to it in the text), this would just remove my point (2), because the main point is that we still don't know if and when Brexit will happen. Regarding the changes in the composition of the groups, my point (3) was referring to the "new" people that at the moment are "on the waiting list" to enter the EP. These people could actually change group even before entering the Parliament. The new seats have "names" already, but they're not associated to groups yet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again Ritchie92. It's true that individual MEPs could always move group, but that was also true of those elected between the time of the election in May and the first meeting in July. For example, in 2014, Brian Crowley had been elected for ALDE but sat with ECR. It didn't mean it was unreasonable to include him or others in the ALDE list or table of results before his move became known. Or after the 2016 United States presidential election, electoral college figures were used despite the possibility of faithless electors, of whom there were a few. We should be able to describe set events which have been decided in the future, even if these may change, without it being speculative or crystal-balling. I'm not sure if it matters if or when Brexit will happen for this purpose. Whether it is on 31 October 2019, a date a few years from now, or not at all, it is a fact about this election that, to take my local examples, Barry Andrews and Deirdre Clune were elected as those who would take the additional seats if and when Brexit would occur. This is something that happened in May 2019. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As to an official source on whether the seat allocation will be that specified here, it does seem so from the Council Decision. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The missing picture

Thanks for adding[1] the picture of Josepha Madigan to List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland. It had been annoying me that we didn't have a pic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! Good to be able to contribute to the maintenance of these pages. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Minister for the Public Service

Hi, Yes, I've reverted you again. But why on earth did you merge Minister for the Public Service into Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport? This is plain wrong. It should have been discussed first. Irish Govt Departments history is a convoluted mess, because they sometimes rename, or sometimes just change the name to something completely different but keep the old department as the legal basis. Anyway, the Minister for the Public Service was a separate dept from 1973–1987, it should not be lumped in with another dept whether or not, there is some legal connection. Best person to ask on this issue is Jnestorious. Spleodrach (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Spleodrach, I did so for the same reason as Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht begins as the Minister for Economic Planning, or the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs begins as the Minister for the Gaeltacht, or the Minister for Labour became the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, despite them being quite different ministers, with no discernible overlapping functions. You can find newly appointed Taoiseach Charles Haughey explain this on 10 March 1987, in a paragraph beginning "To form the new Department of Tourism and Transport …". The legal basis through statute and statutory instruments are linked on Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Now, if you want to maintain a distinction, it is not, as you put it, "plain wrong", but a matter of editorial choice. But we don't maintain separate pages for each set of historic names a department had through its legal history. In this matter, where this was a clear precedent across several other ministries, I did not think I was breaching etiquette by merging without discussion according to the same standard we use for these other departments and ministries. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the way Irish Government Departments have been re-structured over the decades is a mess, but your edits are not helping. This calls for a wider debate one WikiProject Ireland. Spleodrach (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean edits aside from this merger, and if so, in which way were they not helpful? I'm happy to move this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Continuity of government departments, but I will note that in this merger, I was only following the practice as on each other page for Irish ministers -Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Spleodrach, a week later, and no one other than yourself has a view on this. I've explained the changes meticulously on Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, I'm not sure what else I can do here? I can only presume this was an oversight. Maybe there's a case to have separate pages when ministerial responsibilities changes so dramatically, but to leave this and not do the same for all other cases is an anomaly. All I'm seeking to do is provide that consistency. We could try for a RFC, or ask a specific administrator or other editor to asses this? —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iveagh Gardens: I still think these lists are a bit shit when departments are renamed, because they go from Minister for OneThing to Minster for SomethingDifferent in the same list. But, I neither have the time or energy to argue this anymore, so go ahead and do what you like. Spleodrach (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Spleodrach: Done. I don't fundamentally disagree with you that the lists are a mess and can be difficult to follow, which was in part why I added the tables to department pages two years ago showing the transfer of functions. Still not clear and obvious to all, I'd imagine, and it can lead to particular anomalies, like the Ministers for the Gaeltacht appearing on quite separate pages, even if the functions of the current minister are now essentially the same as that of Michael D. in the 1990s. This edit was more about cleaning up one particular list to the same standard and rule as the rest than an endorsement of governments' department naming and renaming habits. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Independent politicians in Ireland

Hello, Iveagh Gardens,

Thank you for creating Independent politicians in Ireland.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This is an interesting subject, but most of the claims in the article are not supported by citations. In many cases, these claims are supported by citations in a linked article, but that is not universally the case, and shouldn't be a substitute for a proper citation in this article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, thanks I appreciate the feedback here, and acknowledge the issues. The claims can be substantiated from text in most Irish politics textbooks, when I have the opportunity, I'll add citations to such sources. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Constitution of the Irish Free State into Government of the 8th Dáil. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: thanks for noticing and pointing this out, it makes a lot of sense, as editors should be credited! I'll make sure to include this attribution in similar edits from now on. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

RE: Double dagger

92nd Academy Awards is a featured list meaning it has gone through a peer review to comply with WP:Accessibility standards. The other lists you mentioned are not featured list status and have not been reviewed. If you disagree with it please contact Giants2008, User:The Rambling Man, or any of the featured list administrators.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick note on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests

I think you can do all the moves yourself by performing a swap since you’re a page mover, just a heads up. Best regards Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 11:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Synoman Barris: I'd requested this a good while back for a particular purpose, which I can't remember, and hadn't then gone to the trouble of working out how to use it! Now that there are a few such moves ahead, as department names are officially moved, I've investigated, and started using it in action. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media

Hello, Iveagh Gardens,

When you do a page move, could you leave a redirect? For this page, there were a lot of redirects to it. If you leave a redirect after the page move, then a bot can change the target of the redirects to the new target. Without a redirect after a move, they turn into broken redirects and get deleted. Alternatively, when you do a page move, you could change all of the redirects manually. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Liz:, I appreciate your help for this, in this instance I did so because I thought I'd have caught the typo (a space missing) quickly enough before bots ended up redirecting to that new name. However, I see at [[2]] that there were a decent number which ending up linking to the page name with the errrot in the name. I've now changed these manually. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mary McAleese

Regarding your removal of every mention of "Roman" preceding "Catholic", the current state of the article makes one wonder given the ambiguity now presented, that if by "practising Catholic" the former Uachtarán is potentially a member of, and only deals with, one of the 23 other sui iuris particular churches in communion with the Patriarch of Rome, or maybe even if the term is being used to refer to her potential Anglican, Lutheran or Orthodox faith. Is McAleese an Eastern Catholic? Does she only deal with Eastern Catholics? It would be safest to assume she is of the Latinate particular church (which she is[3]) like the majority of Catholics in Ireland, however a person with little knowledge of Isle and Catholicism may mistake her for being an adherent of the Coptic, Chaldean, Eritrean, Italo-Albanian, Maronite, Syro-Malabar or Ukranian forms, or any of the others sixteen churches. tl;dr Do some research before determining what is necessary or not. UaMaol (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I am indeed familiar with Eastern Catholicism, and indeed with the fact that Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Churches are Catholic in a wider sense of the word. But I frankly think it somewhat fanciful that there would be any ambiguity in this context as to the rite and denomination of Catholicism in this context. Aside from the fact that the Coptic Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, etc. are also part of the Roman Catholic Church, while not being within the Latin Rite. I can't quite imagine how someone could read the article in either of the ways you suggest, even if they knew nothing of McAleese or Ireland. The link within Wikipedia for Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church are to the same article. My only interest in this is avoiding unnecessary verbosity. I can imagine contexts whether adding the signifier or disambiguating term Roman is necessary, but I can't see what it adds here. One of the things about an encyclopedia with links to all these is that the theoretical person who needs to clarify something can check if in the links, rather than every article having to add every possible relevant fact. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shankill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election

On 14 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election, voters were asked to bring their own pen or pencil? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Dublin Bay South by-election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Irishstatutebook

[4] this order states that those counties listed in Chapter 3 are "Administrative Counties (in addition to those in chapter 2)". So I don't see the point in making a distinction - all are administrative counties. How could they be otherwise? There's no such thing as a non-administrative county. What do you think? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged Except that County Dublin is an example of a non-administrative county. The fact that the order lists them separately means that some part of the state does see a distinction, even if this is the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, through its Placenames Committee, rather than the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, which governs local government areas, i.e. the counties as they exist for administrative purposes. It was actually a bit confusing that the 2003 order uses the term administrative county, a term the Local Government Act 2001 had only so recently retired. But I think Wikipedia can accommodate both the administrative view and the traditional counties view, just as different parts of the state does. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

But non-administrative county is a neologism. It's nowhere in the Acts. That means that Dublin is not a non-administrative county but a former county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well I was borrowing your suggested term, rather than suggesting the neologism myself. Dublin did cease to be a county in 1994, sure. But it is also continues to be treated as a county including by the state for certain purposes. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs did list it as a county in 2003, as well as Tipperary, which was not but is now, a county under the Local Government Acts. You might question Éamon Ó Cuív as to why the order he signed had two lists, but he did. I'm not intending to describe Dublin as a non-Administrative county, but to find the best way to show both its abolition in 1994 and continued existence for other purposes. I've been checking on administrative and electoral descriptions for all counties and local government areas in recent weeks, not just Dublin.

Also, Laurel Lodged, I'm not sure why you reversed my edit in relation to the areas deemed to be counties under Covid regulation. "Several different groups of local government areas were deemed to be a single county" is vague; it could imply that it would include Sligo and Leitrim because they are neighbouring. In each of the instances, they were based around traditional counties, so the four Dublins, two Corks, and two Galways. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted it because it gave the impression that the cities were counties. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how local government areas within a single traditional county gives the impression that cities are counties; they are local government areas within traditional counties, i.e., Cork city is a local government area within the traditional county of Cork, but I'm happy to find a phrasing that clarifies both concerns. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Link updates

Hi, there is no need to "update" links as you did here, in fact the practice is discouraged. See WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

DuncanHill, it's always good to be checked on WP guidelines, before editing more extensively. This is a guideline I was aware of, although in this case I had been editing [[redirect|other text]] to [[target|other text]], which is a little different, as the redirect isn’t currently giving the information and having the uses referenced at WP:NOTBROKEN. In ways, I was correcting for a historic piping against guidelines, which might have obscured the good case in favour of the current name, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Carson&diff=648201514&oldid=648132038 moved in 2015 from [[Edward Carson, Baron Carson]] to simply [[Edward Carson]], per WP:NCPEER. But that said, I get the general principle, so I’m happy to hold off on this one. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Denis O'Conor Don

Thank you so much for withdrawing that nomination for Denis O'Conor Don, not because anyone's won or lost, but because AfDs always get so nasty so it's just very nice to have a civilized discussion from time to time. All the best! Atchom (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment! Also appreciate your work finding that second obituary that altered the balance. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a procedural note as I'm not involved in that AfD, but I'm not sure this close is allowed in this situation given that there was a delete vote by Ceoil. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator_withdrawal): "the AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion" (emph. added). - Ljleppan (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ljleppan, perhaps I was too hasty, and it is better to remain in compliance with the procedure, and ultimately allow someone else to close it. I might simply revert my changes on the three relevant pages. I'm putting Atchom on notice too of this decision to revert the closure. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries on my part, I just happened across the closure in my article alerts :) - Ljleppan (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Wrixon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish bar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Heuston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish bar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dublin Harbour (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dublin Harbour.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Government of the 33rd Dáil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Chambers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Niamh Bhreathnach

On 12 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Niamh Bhreathnach, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 21:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Former town councils in the Republic of Ireland

Wouldn't it have been better to have renamed Category:Town councils in the Republic of Ireland instead of creating a new category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would have. I apologise that the procedure I followed means the previous category you created has been listed for deletion, it was not my intention that your good work a decade ago would be lost. I created it following my creation of Category:Former urban districts in the Republic of Ireland, but I agree that it certainly would have been better to have sought to rename the older category. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)