Jump to content

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force/archive 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This opening proposal and its immediate discussion has been halted pending further taskforce-related discussion. Existing votes can be altered, but no new ones please. It is halted as an act of good faith to people who felt it was "forum shopping" (which is strongly denied by the proposer). It is possible that this proposal could become redundant, be re-started, or simply be re-opened from where it left off (with all contributors contacted). For the moment it is on pause.

(with A to E variations, see below)

“Ireland” will redirect to an Irish country article called Ireland (or an alternative). It will be the main 'state' article, performing the same function as the current Republic of Ireland, but will include the nation's whole history. The top of the article will say; For the article about the island of Ireland see: Ireland (island)” (or alternatively "Island of Ireland") - which will now be a non-political article.

  • The 'country' article will cover Ireland's political and cultural history. (see below for 4 alternative name options)
  • The 'island' article will be geographical only. (see below for 1 alternative name option)

Reasoning:

The idea of this proposal is to the keep the articles and sub articles clearly focused on either the Irish state article, the Northern Ireland article or the geographical island article. The great many articles on Wikipedia that straight-link "Ireland" when meaning an Irish state (countless articles do this, minor biographies especially) will suddely make sense, without any need for change.

A disambiguation page seems against guidelines for this approach, as the top link is all that is needed to point people to a solely geographical article. As Wikipedia is more comprehensive that Britannica, I suggest that it will inevitably demand the geographical article – but it must remain geographical and not have forked political information in it, or blur the difference between the Irish state and Northern Ireland.

Disambiguators to be offered in the WP:IMOS guideline:

“Republic of Ireland” – leading directly to the new “Ireland” article.

“republic of Ireland” – leading directly to the new “Ireland” article.

“Republic of Ireland” – leading directly to the new “Ireland” article.

“Ireland (state)” – leading directly to the new “Ireland” article.

Name changes involved (both moves):

1) “Republic of Ireland” to “Ireland” (or one of the variations below)

2) “Ireland” to “Ireland (island)” (or "Island of Ireland" - see variation below)

The variations of this proposal are:

“Ireland” (as link or keyword) redirects to an Irish country article called:

  • (A) “Ireland”
  • (B) “Ireland (republic of)
  • (C) “Ireland (Republic of)” – with capital ‘R’
  • (D) “Ireland (republic)”
  • (E) “Republic of Ireland” (mainting the current state article, but including pre-ROI history within it)

Note: when considering the above, remember that the "Ireland (island)" article must be geographical-only in this proposal.

Poll on Non-forking proposal

[edit]

Discussion on Non-forking proposal

[edit]

I haven't included a change to the Wikiprojects, as the two we already have - Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ireland which mixes the Irish state with history and geography, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland which has much of its geography in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography - will still constitute the most sensible approach, imo, even though it fits neither the current Ireland-naming approach or the proposed one above perfectly. To create a proper 'Ireland (island)' geography-only Wikiproject, the UK wikiproject would have to be changed to 'Great Britain', but there is the matter human geography. IMO, the word "geography" is too broad, and all the disciplines within it ideally should have projects of their own. No change is best here, imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have you not included a change to the Wikiprojects, you haven't even had the courtesy to inform those long standing projects, or the appropriate noticeboards, that this page even exists! What was the plan - have a quick poll here, declare a result, move pages and insist it was valid because of consensus? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I informed all the projects! Anyone can help, you know! How can I have a 'plan', with the opposes that always turn up on this matter, as a matter of course! I can hardly avoid them - and have always been an honest editor. You simply have give me no AGF at all here Bastun!
As it happened, I got very busy in real life just before this was fully completed - look at the history for proof - and I couldn't risk it being shot down early on a content issue. I had to also deal with a notorious sockpuppet as well, when I did found the time to 'log in'. A couple of people who knew about it signed it before I finished it, but they did wait a couple of days for me and thought I'd completed it. I informed the projects just a few hours later (and the history will show I stayed up most of the night to complete it after I saw that a coupl eof votes had been made). I notice that nobody has criticised the content - that is down to the amount of work I've put into it.
As for not polling to create it in advance - it was a bold move, and I knew a task force would have a great deal of support. But when it comes to polling, I've honestly never seen as powerful a force of negativity on Wikipedia as I have seen surrounding this matter: it's a absolute entrenched situation with many people. The tables prove how awkward the current system is, but some people will simply brook no serious discussion on disambiguating all - it's always brought down with various modes of negative rheotric. People may choose to question my motives (that is purely a matter of opinion on my character as far I'm concerned - I've done nothing improperly) - but no-one can deny that a taskforce was clearly needed - and all I've done is start with a proposal, and to the usual chorus of disapproval. If the "forum shopping" element is seeking a wider audience than the usual suspects fighting the same old polls - then I have always said that this is needed! -Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Bastun, that has been done before in the case of "Years in Ireland", non-acceptance of which "consensus" got me blocked for several weeks, but I digress. I think a simple majority should be enough to decide this issue as it is impossible to get two-thirds with a determined group of people such as DJ who see the name of the state as a "political imposition" based on some sort of "dancing at the crossroads" perceptions of modern Ireland. Ireland is the common name and the official name and the constitutional name and the internationally recognised name of the state. End of. Time to make the change and move on. Matt has finally recognised the overwhelming case and showering criticism on him isn't very productive. Sarah777 (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah777 - your a real comedian (not). But don't worry it is not going to be a "simple majority" particularly given how important this issue is - and also given the fact that previous votes did not get change even with all the serial sock-puppets! You tried to "call" the results before and were wrong - so some free advice - hold off this time! Any case this is a textbook case in forum shopping! Djegan (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It is clearly not forum shopping as you have a group of editors who think it should be changed (not just one or two) and any consensus which exists is far from overwhelming. The fact that the subject has come up again and again, and from different editors over several years indicates that it needs to be addressed not dismissed. --Snowded TALK 15:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly is forum shopping as you have a group of editors who think it should be changed setting up the "task force" within mere days of again failing to achieve even 50% support for the last move proposal. The fact that it has come up again and again and never once achieved 50%, let alone consensus, indicates people need to accept consensus - that the issue has been addressed and we have a very workable solution. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And like I expected something earth shattering from your comments...not. Same recycled material, same old "don't dismiss me, but I can dismiss you!" silliness. Yes, forum shopping at is best. Djegan (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same recycled material largely because you and others don't want to have to deal with it Djegan. i can see an argument for not using Ireland (which is not to say that I agree with it). Consensus as majority vote can be used in Wikipedia to enforce a POV which is why such votes are not the be all and end all of decision making. Matt has attempted something here which is much needed. He has also put a huge amount of effort into showing on the various inks and inconsistencies. All of that is about shifting this long running debate to something objective. Moving to a straight deletion of this task force is further evidence that the word "consensus" is being used to enforce a POV. --Snowded TALK 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
e/c It can equally be said that those who want nothing but the 'status quo' are refusing the idea of a taskforce. The simple fact is the we need one - whether the proposal it started with works or not. I spent a lot of time making the structure of the TF as fair as possible before starting it with my proposal, and I stand by what I said on the request for deletion:
"Please read this task force!! "Forum shopping" is the only argument offered against having it - but it isn't a case of that at all. It started with a proposal and those who didn't like it simply voted oppose. To inform people, I used this: "An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland"." It is getting a lot of support and attention, but those who done like the initial proposal (and happen to wish for the "status quo" regarding Irish articles), also deny the right to a task force, unfortunately. The task force covers issues that go beyond the inital proposal - a great deal of Ireland (island) related articles are confused at the moment (see this cross-usage table taskforce subpage). Generally, when the issue of disambiguation over the actual article names comes up in one of the main articles (and completely dominates it), a 50/50 deadlock occurs from largely the same people to keep consensus - so "forum shopping" is not a fair accusation, surely. And the task force goes beyond simply moving main articles too - for the first time we can cover it all in one place (including the textual disambiguators, like piping "Ireland" to "ROI", that we having so many problems with). A huge amount of disruption to the main articles will be prevented from happening in the future - and right now too - as the current debates are dragging on - even though some are demanding that they be laid to rest. At this time in particular we clearly and simply need a task force."
Yes Matt has put a lot of work into it. Lots of editors have "put a lot of work into it". There is a banner at the bottom of every edit box "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it'." I don't believe this issue can easily be resolved; its the reality of a two political systems, one island. There can only be one article at Ireland and we sure don't need a duff Ireland (state) solution. Djegan (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the poposal suggest an "Ireland (state) solution"? Have you actually read it? The Ireland article at the moment is both geographical and political, and its caused mayhem to all the sub-articles etc - nothing currently sings in tune with each other. We are constantly misleading people. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misleading anyone; the proposals above include "Ireland (republic of)" and "Ireland (republic)" -- am I wrong? Finally Matt, and with respect, this whole proposal is *spectacularly complex* in every detail. I read this days ago. If you think passing thru editors will read this and vote your wrong. This is like the "solutions" at talk:Republic of Ireland -- complexity kills them every time. Djegan (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c, reply to Snowded): :::No, Snowded. Not that tiresome argument again. People have been voting to maintain the status quo for years now, for various different reasons. Moving to a straight deletion is because the project doesn't need yet another place to talk about the same issues, with the same people. We have the individual article pages and WP:IMOS for that already. That's not PoV, its fact. Please stop accusing those who disagree with you of pushing a POV. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batsun, when people push a position in the face of controversy and refuse to seek a different way forwards then I am afraid I suspect a POV. Its not a simple Ireland or ROI choices, and doesn't need to be presented as such. We have documented evidence that UK Government agreed to cease use of ROI post GFA as part of an overall change which included the removal of claims to Northern Ireland by Ireland (the state). Given that this change has been generally made elsewhere, it seems that only WIkipedia is holding out, hence my concern, and my suspicion. --Snowded TALK 15:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check folks. Ireland is the common name and the official name and the constitutional name and the internationally recognised name of the state. End of. Imposition of RoI is breaching naming policy and WP:NPOV and is clearly politically motivated as DJ let slip in his "dancing at the crossroads" post. Sarah777 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah777 -- are you "politically motivated" in all of this -- be truthful, go on now? Stop been dumb, politically motivated or not my views are as valid as anyone else. What was politically motivated was the constitution in naming the state. Now lets not be dumb about these things. Anyone can sling mud. Djegan (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DJ, I am shocked at you claim that I'm politically motivated in this matter. Sarah777 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys. Per my note on the MfD page, can't we change the remit of this from a "voting" to collaboratively constructing a set of MOS guidelines around when/where/how to use ROI, when to pipe, when not, when to spell out "also known as ROI", etc, etc? Surely we can do that? Can we not? Come up with a set of 8 to 10 bullets that represent a compromise on styles/names/links? Is even that beyond us? Certainly a forumshop is not worthwhile. But we can "wiki" up some copy on new guidelines? Can't we? Guliolopez (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a way forward which does not involve using ROI as the article name would represent a compromise, debating how to use it and when to pipelink is actually taking a position. --Snowded TALK 16:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who "spouts" off about how everyone who disagrees with you is riddled with POV you do have a nerve. Djegan (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My above statement is factual Djegan, the debate is about the use or non use of ROI, so to suggest that discussing variations on the use of ROI is not a compromise. I have never used the words "riddled" nor does my edit history support a view that I think any disagreement with me is POV. However I am increasingly of the opinion that the refusal to accept anything else but the continued use of ROI is a POV (thats called a limited statement, please don't generalise it). --Snowded TALK 17:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Deindent). Guys. This has been said before, but we really need to take a break from this for a while. No matter what we ultimately do to address these issues (vote on a move, formulate a new MOS, whatever), it's clear that temperatures are running way too high to do so within a framework of AgF-based collarboration. Can we all just take a break for a couple of days, collectively count to ten, and then come back and figure out what to do next? At this stage (and I'm probably guilty of this myself as much as anyone else), no matter how brilliant, beautiful or perfect a suggestion may be, people seem to have difficulty taking personality/history/partisan politics/etc out of the equation. And we'll probably miss or dismiss suggestions which would otherwise have seen some traction. So, can we just give it a rest - even just until next week - and go back to what we are all good at. IE: Writing and improving articles for the project. Just for a while. Then, hopefully with a little less hot blooded-ness and none of this "I will never accept anything you say, not because of what you're saying but because of who's saying it", and some cooler perspective, we can then come back and try and be more collaborative. Irrespective of perceived politics/agenda/whatever. Guliolopez (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some independent arbitration to sort out the facts and issues without all the usual arguments being run out again? --Snowded TALK 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that can work. Personally I think no fully independent external person will fully grasp the complexities (though the IDTF page does describe it well), and so we'll just end up with a solution/proposal that nobody wants. An "enforced" resolution. The "cut the baby in half" proposal I was worried about before. Anyway, I'm taking my own advice and taking a break from this for a while. My head is wrecked. Guliolopez (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, these demands for a "break" (that first appeared not long after the latest proposals started!) when people feel so strongly right now are really not helping things at all. Given past 'moratoriums' etc, it seems only to be another rhetorical device, and has simply make people feel even more strongly than they already do.. There is a great momentum for this, and that must be acknowledged now. It is impossible to sideline now - hence this taskforce had to happen. The 3RR'ing, locked pages, confused articles etc are not going to simply stop unless we try and deal with this.

I actually made this taskforce as the current Ireland disambiguation problems are literally preventing me from completing a guideline elsewhere - ie nobody can agree on how to approach dealing with Ireland - both as state, and as island. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) is cool. Howabout the disambiguous page being called Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you make that a separate proposal, in a little while, perhaps (after seeing what happens here)? A lot of influential people have said they won't accept the word "(state)", and a disam page for just two artcles rubs against guidelines (though this in not a complete rule - I've seen ones with two) - normally a 'top link' in the most popular article is suggested (which is my part-solution here). From what I've seen in past polls, "Ireland (island)" seems to be more generally accepted than "Ireland (state)" - although we don't know yet what many (eps neutral) people think of "Ireland (island)" yet, which is a little frustrating. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Non-forking proposal (arb break..)

[edit]
GoodDay's proposal is the only one that is ever likely to achieve agreement all round. The name of the state is Ireland. It has been so since 1937. It is recognised as such by every international body. It is the name used by every country except the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - even the UK Government agreed solemnly in the Belfast Agreement to accept that name. The only obstruction is a small group of UK editors asserting the POV that they are right while the rest of the world is wrong. Yes, it is a "common name" in the UK but it is not a common name worldwide and this is a worldwide encyclopedia, not a British one.
Reality is not tidy: there are many words that have different meanings in different contexts. It is an insult to our readers to claim that they cannot distinguish between a political context and [physical] geography context. --Red King (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a preference for the opening proposal? GoodDay, as he said above, will follow it with his own Ireland (state) proposal. I'm not sure it will work (though you may be right about it being the most universally approved compromise), but will happily vote in it if the first proposal doesn't lead anywhere. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't start from here: this proposal is built on sand because it starts from a UK perspective and doesn't recognise that words have different meanings in different contexts and life doesn't all fit into neat little boxes. --Red King (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you combine 'Ireland (island)' with 'Ireland (state)' in a proposal, presumably with a disam page? I don't see how that is more meaningful than the opening 'Ireland (island)' with 'Ireland' proposal? How is that on built on sand? People do often mean "Ireland" in kinds of emotional ways - but Wikipedia can only account for the recognised (and provable) facts.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The solution came to me last night in a dream :) We have the country simply as "Ireland" and at the top have "Ireland may also refer to the Island of Ireland". Barnstars may be deposited on my talkpage. Sarah777 (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see below that the verifiable sources are not supported by the "community" "consensus" - so obviously the sources have got it wrong, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International usage lists for "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland"

[edit]

A list of usages collected from outside Great Britain and Ireland. Please contribute. Exclude FIFA / UEFA and similar sporting references because these refer to the soccer team and not the state.

  • Republic of Ireland
    • ?

Discussion

[edit]
Note- The RoI pushers aren't arguing the name of the country; they're arguing that the descriptive (Republic of Ireland) helps lesson confusion over the usage of the name Ireland, for less familiar viewers. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some of them, yes: but it's not that simple, though. I would argue that creating confusion over what "Ireland" is, is the order of the day for certain people who want a ROI article and a political "Ireland" article to coexist, which happens now - hence the vote for 'no change'. For some people it is less over the name of 'ROI', than it is for keeping an "Ireland"-as-island article that includes Northern Ireland in a political sense (with all the forked info from both country articles). That is the "Ireland" some poeple want to see. There are many angles here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note- The Ireland pushers merely wish to see the country article Republic of Ireland, given it's proper name Ireland. Thus require the island article Ireland to be changed to (for example) Ireland (island). GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found 10,000+ refs on "Google" to Oireland, which should also be described somewhere on the "Ireland" page. It is a humorous (or not) attempt to render the name as pronounced in Hiberno-English, which is my native language.Red Hurley (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this section meant to further the debate when it is aimed at demonstrating facts which no one disputes: namely that Ireland is the official name of the Irish state and that the official name is widely used internationally for official purposes. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blue-Haired Lawyer. The list is one-sided purely because nobody else can be bothered going through this "fact-finding" exercise yet again. It didn't help before and it won't help now. It's putting off people who might have a genuine interest in consensus-gathering because of its "pointy" nature. Scolaire (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object if I sub-paged the list below, like this usage tables? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be delighted :-) Scolaire (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to moving the section, but I still believe how the article and this section are written says quite a lot. For instance, to say that "FIFA/UEFA and similar sporting references because these refer to the soccer team and not the state" is pure conjecture. The UK excepted, sport teams use the common name of their country. By the same logic "Italy" is just the name of a soccer team which coincidentally has players who come from the "Italian Republic". Why isn't there a section on the use of Ireland to mean the whole island? What about the GAA, Rugby and cricket teams? Why is it that the framing of the argument is against those of use in favour of keeping the Republic of Ireland article as it is. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I haven't even read them - Red King started the section, but most of the examples were placed in by an IP who is a banned user. I'm so sick of IP's (especially this user's) that I'm not interested anymore. I wouldn't worry about deleting any examples that are not up to scratch - the IP is dynamic, so it will no longer exist to complain. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Red King does not seem to have been on for a couple of days, so I'll sub-page it now, and leave him a message. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, another inconvenient fact that is properly supported by citations is squirreled away where nobody can see it. What political agenda do you insist on pushing that makes you right and every international body, every independent source wrong? The name of the state is Ireland. "Republic of" is a description that asserts that it is not a monarchy. The British habit of referring to Ireland by any name but its own is just that - a British habit. Wikipedia is a world encyclopedia, not a British one (though even Brtitannica manages to get it right!).--Red King (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But let's at least be conistent and look at the articles Italy and France. The constutional names of these two states are Repubblica Italiana" (Italian Republic) and République Francaise" (French Republic). The Italian peninsula contains three states: the Italian Republic, San Marino and the Vatican City State. The French 'hexagon' contains two states: the French Republic and Monaco. So explain to me please, what makes Ireland so different? --Red King (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Ireland_disambiguation_task_force/archive_1&oldid=1138542003"