Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Irish presidential election, 2011

An IP placed this up for review (a quick check shows no obvious single contributors recently) and, having reviewed it, there are only a few small things needed. I wonder whether someone could attend to them as they have not been so attended yet. Review is here. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Aer Lingus and Hangar 6

Has Aer Lingus given away its former/previous head office yet? It was supposed to move into Hangar 6 this year

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Not yet. Movement underway but will not be complete until early 2012. Why? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The reason why is that I would like for a photo of the new HQ to be posted at the Aer Lingus article once the signage is up.
Also if one could get a better photo of the current Aer Lingus HQ, that would be nice :)
Thank you,
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Help me please!

Some editors (POV pushers would not be inaccurate) have started a vendetta against me because of some issues I raised that they did not like, now look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Re:_Sheodred, note that Marcus has asked for the involvment of two admins that wrongly blocked me before and then had to revert their blocks, hence they have an axe to grind with me, one might worry that they might leap at an opportunity like this, what will I do, they are lying saying that I broke a specific self-restriction about editing nationalities in Irish-articles, help me, I don't want to get a six-month ban, I have done nothing to warrant this, /sob uncontrollably. Sheodred (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, the topic ban seems fair and mild. Night of the Big Wind talk 23:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand that it looks that way on the surface, you need to delve deeper, and read the discussions and contributions of the other editors and myself if you are to really grasp whats going on.Sheodred (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Why should anyone delve? Defend yourself, don't expect others to do the hard work. A jury doesn't go find proof a defendant is innocent, he has to make a case. Admins aren't going to search through every edit you made over the list I made, which is close to 1000 edits from which I extracted those examples. Perhaps if you hadn't been threatening, you would never have found yourself in this situation: [1] – "next time he acts like that though it will not be ignored". Your words. After calling me a "dick" and a "jerk", and accusing me of being a POV pusher, uncivil, and makings PAs, you have yet to present any diffs to support any of this. Your AN/I accusations were dismissed as being of no admin interest, and your WQA was just a waste of time and bytes. Actions speak louder than words. I've responded to the WP:ECCN which you opened, fair and square, and clearly over-whelmed your attempt to pre-empt anything "Union nationalist" that you accused everyone of. No diffs, no defence. Just lobbying for support on an Ireland project page, "sobbing" for sympathy, and digging a deeper hole. AN patience only extends so far, so any admin reviewing the 40-odd examples of your POV-pushing is really going to get the picture. So why are you fighting against the obvious? You're only making yourself look the "dick". Marcus: Here are 40-odd examples. You: I have done nothing /sob. Please, is that really the best you can do after all your mouthing off at numerous editors and admins? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle... ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I've been looking at the edits of Sheodred listed above and out of curiosity I looked at his editing history, to check the findings of Marcus British. Out of total of 1042 (at this point in time) contributions:-

It is blatantly obvious that you do not like my edits, and the issues I have raised, it is clear you support Marcus, I do not know what you are insinuating with those IPs but I suggest you stop stalking me looking for "evidence" of my "misconduct", I suggest you get a life Richard.Sheodred (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Another PA. I'm listing these too now. For ArbCom. If ECCN fails I'm going for a full Site Ban proposal with those first 43 national edits, plus these retorts. Toodles! Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 10:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
And Richard, if you falsely tag me again as a sockpuppet vandal, without a CheckUser, I will make sure that you will end up explaining that move to an admin, actually nevermind I will report you, I'm sick of this.Sheodred (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

At no time have I said anything about liking or disliking your edits or the issues you have raised. Nor have I made any claims about supporting any specific editor. I simply said I looked at the edit history to check (IE: confirm or disprove) the findings by 'MarcusBritish', not for "evidence" of your "misconduct". I did not insinuate anything about your use of the Anon IP's either. As for getting a life. I've had a fairly long and varied one to date and no doubt will continue to do so. I have not "falsely" accused you of being a "sockpuppet vandal" either. Thank you for taking that issue to the admin noticeboard, though I do wish you had provided the correct link to it on my talkpage as the one you gave was incorrect. However having eventually found it I was able to provide the supporting evidence of the Anon IP usage by your self. In closing please do not attempt to bait me again. I was not going to get involved in the substance of the accusations between yourself and MarcusBritish. However your subsequent actions tend to indicate you are not able to function well in this particular collaborative environment. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to Richard Harvey

Oh really,explain your edit summaries then: [2](IP ID & sockpuppet tag - vandalism only account)

And these: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:93.107.193.247&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:93.107.193.247&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:143.239.70.75&action=history

Also one of those edits on those IPs, has a contribution about Britney Spears, yes I'm sure thats me......please retract. Sheodred (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have done that on the Administrators noticeboard, in the blue link given above. However as your seem to want it also given here then so be it:- There were no false allegations, the socking had already been proven, as follows:-

  • 93.107.193.247 Was Sock Tagged as having been confirmed that it was used by Sheodred. He used the IP to call another editor a dick, He then edited, within a minute the IP entry and changed the signature to Sheodred. That would tend to be proof of ownership of the Anon IP edit. See these diffs for evidence:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&diff=next&oldid=465548269
  • 93.107.193.247 Tagged as suspect sockpuppet of Sheodred based on this evidence:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse&diff=next&oldid=457727068 Sheodred accused an editor of being a 'Troll'. He then used the Anon IP to make a subsequent reply, due to being blocked by Black Kite for a 3RR violation, for which he had his 72 hour block extended to 111 hours by Black Kite for 'socking with an IP'. See his block log for evidence:-
  • 09:51, 28 October 2011 Black Kite (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Sheodred (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 111 hours (account creation blocked) ‎ (Block evasion: extending block length by 48h due to socking with IP)
  • 00:57, 28 October 2011 Black Kite (talk | contribs) blocked Sheodred (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Violation of the three-revert rule)
  • 05:33, 30 November 2010 Daniel Case (talk | contribs) blocked Sheodred (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: tendentious edit warring)

Note that I did not at anytime accuse Sheodred of being a Vandal, that is wording he has used to attempt to make the issue greater than it is. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Explain your edit summaries then: [3](IP ID & sockpuppet tag - vandalism only account)Sheodred (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I take it then that you are confirming that the Anon IP tagged as a Sockpuppet and used to make an edit accusing another editor of being a dick, which is vandalism, was an edit made by yourself ? NB: having provided the evidence against your accusation of falseley accusing you of socking. I won't be making any further replies as it now up to the Admins to decide on the outcome of your claim.

I forgot to log on with my username, I corrected my mistake when addressing Marcus, I honestly don't see what the problem is, I don't use that Anon IP on wikipedia so its not a sockpuppet of me, so your accusation is a false one. Anyway dick in that context refers to [4], if you had bothered to do your homework you would have known that, one could label it as a personal attack (but the term is referring to their behaviour not the person) but personal attacks are not vandalism, so get your facts straight. Sheodred (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As for the Britney Spears contribution; I assume you mean the Anon IP That changed the wording on the 3 (song) article from Ireleand to Irish. If you re-read the above entries you would have noted that the link was in relation to the latest edit from that IP:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse&diff=next&oldid=457727068 Therefore there is no requirement to retract any statement by myself. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't even bother, why would I care what the Anon IP did, from what you say they only corrected a spelling/grammatical error on an article about a stupid Bitney Spears song, big deal. Sheodred (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

List of towns in the Republic of Ireland by population

The above relies of data from 2006 so it is a little out of date. I tried to find figures for 2011 with which I could update the list but this was the best I could do and the 2006 figures did not match up with those from the same site in 2006. I can't work out why there's a difference, can anybody else? Nev1 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Better wait for the 2011 results. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Clontarf

Is this a fake title? I can find no reference to it in any of the usual peerage sites. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I can find no reference to it anywhere. It reeks of hoax. Though compared to the hoax about Slavoj Žižek endorsing Lady Gaga, it is pretty crap. Snappy (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like splendid hokum. Nominated for speedy deletion. RashersTierney (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

British people in Ireland

Given the huge numbers of people from our sister isle that have settled over here down the generations, ought we not create a new category to reflect this? Or does some such already exist? Fergananim (talk) 11:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds potentially messy. In many cases there might be more appropriate categories already, to do with specific historical events? And, with reference to other, em, ongoing discussions, would every Unionist figure have to have this category appended? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
You should look up the official definition of an Irish(wo)man to see when somebody is supposed to be Irish. If not Irish, just leave it as it is. Don't start another war with the English, taking the whole British Army as POW would make them cry. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Townlands

Does Rathmoon merit an article, with an 1824 population of 6 families? PamD 19:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion: NO. The present article give no clue of notability, so a merge/redirect to the closed place is enough. Night of the Big Wind talk 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I've proposed similar townland articles for deletion before however keep getting told that any article on a land division is notable so in that case it must merit an article, unless you can merge it in a more appropriate article. Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

River Avonmore

Apparently it's not notable. At least according to a random American Republican... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Avonmore BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha good job on the 'source' joke :-) and i have voted for a speedy keep. Let's get this damm(n)ed river flowing again. benzband (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Earls of Desmond: numbering

Hi all, a few years back a debate was started (at Talk:Gerald FitzGerald, 15th Earl of Desmond) on the possibility of renumbering some of the Earls of Desmond according to the published sources available. It remained unresolved at the time.

I've gone through some of the public domain sources that have become available since and created a proposal (or three) on how the numbering might be changed. Anyone with an interest is welcome to discuss. See Talk:Earl_of_Desmond.

KerryMuso (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Aisling

It seems to me that this is an article that could perhaps do with some help, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to provide that. Also, can anyone advise whether the claim in Róisín Dubh (song) that the song is an aisling is accurate? I would have thought not, but perhaps I´m misunderstanding the parameters of the genre. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't see any such claim at your link, but these apparently reliable sources indicate, that in at least one iteration, it is, or at least 'deriving from that tradition'. RashersTierney (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks RT. I was actually wondering, after I posted this, if Mangan's version - which you can read here: http://www.bartleby.com/101/664.html - might have been behind this. It seems to me somewhat closer to the aisling genre, insofar as it seems more obviously dreamlike. But I don't think it is as well known as the original these days. That link, as you say, describes it as "deriving from the aisling tradition", rather than as being an aisling. My understanding is that the definitional aspect of an aisling is the appearance of the persona of Ireland to the poet in a dream, which isn't really what is happening in Róisín Dubh. Maybe I should hunt down Ó Buachalla's book... ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, link above to Róisín_Dubh_(song) wasn't working for some reason. This one does - on preview, anyway... ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Irish Language

User Taoiseach has been populating county & provincial articles with a new Irish language section. He was having some problems with in-line citations. Users Rashers assisted him to overcome this difficulty. See County Antrim as an example. Anyway, the in-line citation goes to a doc that is only in the Irish language to prove its point. Is this acceptable for the English language wiki? Should we insist on a version that has been translated into English? On a slightly different point, and rather ironically, user Taoiseach has difficulty is applying the plural for Gaelscoil, favouring the non-existant Gaelscoils over Gaelscoileanna. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing at County Antrim. Edits at County Tipperary apply. RashersTierney (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The information is reasonable for inclusion in Wikipedia and there is no requirement that a source be in English. However it is not of any great interest except in an article specifically about schooling of Irish see WP:Relevance of content#Interactions between subjects. So it should be removed from the various individual articles. Dmcq (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I would say that it would need to be English text. But I also think that a statement of statistics which in itself has a finite duration, is usually read in the infobox. I’m not sure what context this particular stat gives to the article. A more balanced statistic could show the CSO number of Irish speakers from the last census compared to the county population, or even the breakdown of languages in the county. Or perhaps show the number of people in school attendance v Irish schools. DubhEire (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The stuff would be better suited to the Irish language article, and can be presented in a nice wee table. Mabuska (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Removing correctly cited material because it is not in English would fly in the face of current practice. There is no requirement that all sources must be in English. It would be utterly daft to expect every reliable source relating to use of the Irish language to be written bilingually. RashersTierney (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dmcq that the information is not very relevant to the subject. The content is good though and would be suitable to Education in the Republic of Ireland and Education in Northern Ireland. I would agree too that gaelscoilleanna is preferential.
There is no great issue with citing non-English souraces. However, English-language sources are preferred if they are of equal quality.
I've notified Taoiseach of this discussion. --RA (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) But unless I'm missing something, this doesn't seem to be a source at all. It's a Microsoft Word document with tables of figures but no indication of its provenance. Sorry, I now see that the link points to gaelscoileanna.ie, but it needs to be better attributed. I think this particular information would fit better into a section about education in the county than about the Irish language, in the lack of any other information about the language in Co. Antrim. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd have no problem about this line being moved to the education sections. RashersTierney (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing particular about education in the individual counties. About the least that could make something like this of interest at a county level is if there was a gaeltacht area there. As to education I'd have thought one might perhaps want the number of schools of various types in a county but not the exact breakdown of all the subjects they teach and how many students there are in each. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Since no education sections yet exist the material would seem to be fine where it is. The stats in question relate to the use of Irish in areas specifically outside the Gaeltacht areas. In fact, the present sections could be expanded to show the ebb/flow decline/revival of the language on a county by county basis. The historic census data specifically included the parameter, so reliable encyclopedic info. should be easy enough to collate. This from the CSO as just a random example. In any case, we've come a long way from the initial spurious objection. RashersTierney (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Respect please Rashers. Firstly it was raised here as a discussion point, not an objection. Secondly, other editors happen not to agree with your opinion on the question; that does not make their opinions spurious. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Website clone

Any opinions what to do next. I cleaned up this article as it was not encyclopaedic, but rather a version of the website. However, shortly afterwards it was reverted by an anonymous ip. If I revert again, I'm sure it will be reverted by the ip and I'd be accused of an edit war. I already made an entry in the talk page. Any ideas what to do now. DubhEire (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What is this a clone of? It may be a copyvio. Do not be confused by mirrors of this wiki. ww2censor (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
sorry, I should say it appears to be an extension of the website with wording and structure that you would typically find about courses and enrolment. DubhEire (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
If the problem persists from IP-only or newly-registered accounts, the page could be semi-protected. The content before you cleaned it was clearly WP:SPAM. --RA (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
yep, that's the one. I must get more familiar with the correct terms again. Thank you. DubhEire (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing Irish politics by year

There has been a request at Articles for creation to create categories Category:1970s in Irish politics and so on. For all other countries which have a categorization scheme along these lines, the categories cover only a single year (eg Category:1997 in American politics) and are directly placed in Category:Years in American politics or its analogue, without "decades" categories. Is there a reason for Irish politics categories to have "decades" categories, or should we make the Irish categories conform to the usual scheme as well? Huon (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I could be talking out my hat here, but for smaller states, maybe a decade range would be more suitable. How many articles are expected to be in each year? Maybe it would be more suitable to have fuller categories by decade rather than sparser categories by year? Even looking through the American example, the contents of some of the categories are quite sparse.
(Maybe there is a worth in the question of moving the entire categorisation of these topics to decades rather than years as present?) --RA (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

America is big, Ireland is small. Are you suggesting there should be more categories than necessary? Ireland is unlikely to have even one election/major political event for every year in its history, never mind several each year for their own category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.203 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Example, Category:1970s in Irish politics, which you mention, currently contains 18 articles, hardly enough at this time for a category for every year of that decade. Even if they were evenly spread there would only be one for each year and a second for only eight of the ten categories you are proposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.203 (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually I'd suggest that some articles currently so categorized don't belong in any "Irish politics by year" category at all: The political magazines. Anyway, America isn't the only example; Category:Years in British politics and Category:Years in Canadian politics are organized along the same lines. Canada isn't that much bigger than Ireland if we go by population. Besides, I expect there won't be entries for some of the years (1971 seems to have no significant events, for example), while others will be more populated. And from 2007 onwards we do have categories for every single year, but we still have Category:2010s in Irish politics. That should be resolved one way or the other; we surely don't need both years and decades. Huon (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You're suggesting then that there are less articles to be categorized but that there should be more categories? Category:2010s in film, Category:2010s in fiction, Category:2010s in science, Category:2010s in radio, Category:2010s in video gaming, Category:2010s in television, Category:2010s in sports... so what exactly is wrong with politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.93 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I was merely following the precedent of "years in politics" categorization. If it is determined that decades are sufficient for Irish politics, I won't object, but I'd still say that we don't need both decades and individual years. That seems unnecessarily redundant. How about decades up to the 1990s and individual years from 2000 onward? That's a rather arbitrary cut-off, but it would retain all the individual years we currently have. Huon (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One liner heat

Got flagged for what I thought would ba an ok one liner. Any help with amendments as per rules on Cosgrave Property Group. One does forget that not everyone is Irish or related at least once removed. But I'm sure can be forgiven for thinking so. DubhEire (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ian O'Doherty

This article has suffered some POV-pushing in the subjects' favour in the past - I've edited to take out some of that, but it probably needs more work. One issue - is Youtube an appropriate source for a WP:BLP? I would have thought that it fell foul of WP:BLPSPS.Autarch (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Marc Coleman

This article is short on sources (inlined ones, anyway) and has been subject to POV-pushing in the subjects' favour in the past.Autarch (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

House of Prayer, Achill

I've nominated House of Prayer, Achill to be POV-checked, but the nomination, along with a multiple-issues tag, were deleted by User:FluffyRug, who seems to be a WP:SPA. I had previously reverted edits by this editor on the grounds that they were WP:POV, but this was reverted shortly afterwards. Not wishing to get into an edit war, I instead nominated the article for a POV check and noted issues to do with sources. These tags were subsequently removed by User:FluffyRug. What would you suggest?Autarch (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This article has been hijacked by User:StPhilomena and User:FluffyRug (both SPAs). It now reads as if it was written by Christina Gallagher. I suggest taking it to WP:ANI. Snappy (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
There would appear to be strong NPOV issues since these contributors began (and a one-time user WiseOldChinaMan). Compare before and after. Also of concern may be StPhilomena's related contributions to Gerard McGinnity.
I don't know if ANI will be of any help. I don't know if there have been any "incidents" yet. Maybe more eyes on the article and a discussion with the two editors on the article talk page, pointing to the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, would lead to a a more positive solution? --RA (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Have just reverted edits by FluffyRug, who dropped back to make more edits.Autarch (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I think if you have discussed the edits on the article talk page, and alerted the editor on his or her user talk page, and if the editor fails to engage with you, then it's time to take the next step. Scolaire (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How can an article about the House of Prayer, Achill be hijacked by someone providing more factual information about it which is backed-up by multiple relevant and independant publications. Information which is widely known! The article has been amended to comply with Wikipedia policy and yet you continue to take it down . FluffyRug (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Irish school up for deletion

It seems that no one saw fit to notify the project that Template:Infobox Irish school is up for deletion for some reason. Discussion here. Please contribute. Fmph (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in the lack of involved from those who setup the proposal to remove it and the fact that they have already removed it without any decision made. DubhEire (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It would appear that the Infobox Irish school is catered for in the Infobox School. I don't believe we would be losing anything in any school article. I am disappointed in the lack of involvement, but I can see where the enthusiasm came from. DubhEire (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, I once used the Irish template in pref. to the generic one because it had an additional parameter that was appropriate. Can't now think what it was, but it appears to have been rectified since. RashersTierney (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Cat re-name proposal.

The Category:Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Ireland has been listed for discussion on WP:CfD Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland

Category:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Townland infobox

I've just created a new infobox that can be used on townland articles. It can be found at Template:Infobox Townlands. It could do with a fancier looking presentation but it gets the information out and suffices the infobox criteria geographical location articles require. Should it be added to the IMoS? Mabuska (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Ireland will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Ireland's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Irish local government councils

Category:Irish local government councils, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Healy-Rae family

Category:Healy-Rae family, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Two Irish local govt templates nominated for deletion

Two templates relating to local govt in Ireland have been nominated for deletion, on the templates for discussion page.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Idle question: how did the second template come to the attention of the proposer? Answers on a very small postcard to Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
After I nominated the first template, another editor kindly posted a message on my talk page to draw my attention to the second one. I took a look at it, and reckonhed it was a superfluous as the first one, so I took it to TfD. But you knew that already, and if you have a problem with my conduct or that of the other, this is not the right place to discuss it.
If you have something to say about what purpose these templates serve, that discussion should take place at TfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
So are you blaming Snappy for the hounding? He was doing no more than obeying His Master's Voice - his usual form. I think that he'd be entitled to plead the Nuremburg defence in this case. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Spare me the insults Laurel Lodged, and concentrate on the issue in question. You created a superfluous template, when BHG nominated it for TfD, you got your knickers in a bunch and created a second equally superfluous template. Such petty, spiteful editing, combined with the personal insults, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Snappy (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The issue in question: the first template was not superflous. Those were not the grounds offered for its deletion. It was merely inaccurate. It used Foo County Council instead of Foo County. The second template corrected that simple error. The second template is not superflous. It will serve a good purpose. But at least you've admitted to hounding; honesty is the best policy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The issue in question is superfluous templates, nothing more. Everything else you are babbling on about is delusional. Snappy (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Delusional you say. How then would you characterise your stumbling across the second template? Bearing it mind that it was only created yesterday, is a work in progress (no doubt it contains some small errors that I intend to correct over time). For these reasons I did not deploy it. Anywhere. Yet you found it. But that's not hounding you'd have us believe. Anybody buying that line? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Totally delusional and with a side order of martyr complex too. The template was very easy to find, I found the template because I was viewing Category:Ireland county templates, into which you placed it on creation. If the template was a work in progress, then it should have been in your userspace not it mainspace. Simples! Snappy (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, I suggest that you check carefully what WP:HOUNDing is before alleging that you are being hounded. If you really believe that you are being hounded, then take it up through Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, but please stop filling the project page with personal attacks and process complaints which cannot be resolved here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I find all of this very disappointing. There are not that many editors actively working on Wikiproject Ireland and to see clashes such as this, it is disappointing. There's no smoke without fire as they say and so I took a further look into this. It did strike me as odd why BrownHairedGirl did not enter into even a discussion with LaurelLodged on said templates. It does appear that there is a history between the two editors. Same goes for user Snappy. C'mon now you lot. I know that everyone is looking to improve Wikipedia so you should be sure to engage each other, even if you disagree. Just nominating something by another editor simply because you disagree with it and especially because you have had exchanges with them in the past is not a constructive approach. It's rather dismissive. DubhEire (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
DubhEire, I respect your desire to avoid conflict, but I think your suggestions are misplaced ... and I am puzzled by your complaint that I nominated something for deletion because I disagree with it. Any template at TfD has been nominated for deletion because an editor believes that it meets the deletion criteria, and there is nothing different about this one. I nominated this one for deletion because I believe that per WP:TFD#REASONS.2, it is "is redundant to a better-designed template". That leads to a discussion at TFD, where editors try to reach a consensus.
Your suggestion that I try to engage with LL before taking it to TFD sounds like a good one, but in the case of LL I have found from lengthy experience that it is pointless, and many other editors have found the same. I have tried dozens of times to have substantive discussions with LaurelLodged on his talk page, but I have repeatedly found when I post to his talk page I either get abuse or get ignored. In fact, LL frequently doesn't even participate at the formal deletion discussion of a page he has created, even when he is notified (see for example the January 22 TfD which is the first of two linked at the top of this section. That is dismissive.).
If LL disagrees with a deletion nomination, there is a central place where anyone with a view on the page can engage: it's the XfD page. Unfortunately, this discussion is just one of many where instead of discussing the substantive merits of the page, LL has cluttered up the discussion with personal attacks. That's LL's choice, not mine.
So please could we just discuss whether or not this template meets the deletion criterai--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sports deletions

Can someone explain to me what should be done here. There are a lot of deletions proposed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Article alerts and some would appear to be justified for a basic WP:copyvio. I have noticed each day a few articles, however having more time today when looking into these there is no indication as to why the articles should be removed. There is suggestion because it is not notable under particular project guidelines but fails to mention why it is not notable. Some do appear to be notable contrary to the proposers vague reasons. Should we put halt to these volumes of deletions until reasonable justification is given. DubhEire (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a long history of GAA-related articles being created and nom'd for removal. Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic games could probably do with a few more sets of eyes to keep things manageable. Like yourself, article creation and deletion nominations occur when editors 'have a bit of time on their hands'. The projects themselves indicate what is considered 'notable', the usual bone of contention. RashersTierney (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
ah. Ok. I'll look into this further. Anything reasonable is fair, but the spate of deletions are given with very shaky cases. DubhEire (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Rashers. There some great editors working on GAA stuff, but sadly there have also been many contributors to GAA articles who pay little attention to notability guidelines, or to reliable sourcing. Unfortunately not many of editors involved appear to be active in the GAA project, so there hasn't been much by way of systematic efforts to tackle these problems -- not through lack of goodwill, but simply because there are not enough hands to tackle that big a problem.
I have in the past done some systematic tagging of problematic GAA articles, and tried to draw attention to the need for a cleanup (e.g. March 2008,March 2008 again, March 2009, March 2009 again), but sadly there has not been much progress. So I am not surprised that a deletion spree has started, tho I am surprised that it has taken so long. (One of the articles at AFD has remained unref since I tagged it nearly 4 years ago).
Some of the articles at AFD appear to me to be on topics of at least borderline notability, but most of them fall a long way short of demonstrating that notability. When there are so many substandard articles, it's not surprising that periodically an editor encounters the mess and starts AFDing. I think that this sort of thing is inevitable when the relevant wikiproject is not proactively on the case itself :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Page notices

Apologies in advance as this isn't the proper place to raise it, but a) as I'm using Irish IP addresses, why am I seeing talkpage notices for meetups in Coventry and jobs at Wikimedia UK, and b) where would be the proper place to raise this? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bastun. Please ask over at Wikipedia:Geonotice - it may be that the longitude/latitude ranges are set to be too large, or that your IP is not being properly geolocated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
For anyone interested in a possible Ireland meet-up, they can put Wikipedia:Meetup/Ireland on their watch list, and perhaps add their monicker at the 'Interested' section. Recent discussion seems to have waned a bit, but if there is a renewed expression of interest we could perhaps kick something off. RashersTierney (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I understand, the geo-notices work on the basis of a bouding rectangle of longitude/latitude. Any IP identified as coming from within that bounding rectange then are marked as a positive hit.
So, if the whole of the UK is to be taken in, the bounding rectangle is:
  • the northern tip of Scotland
  • the southern tip of England
  • the eastern tip of England
  • the western edge of Northern Ireland
... a rectangle that takes in a sizable portion of Ireland outside of the UK (as well as the Isle of Man).
In fairness, though, Wikimedia UK have been quite supportive of a efforts to establish a Wikimedia Ireland (including registering www.wikimedia.ie on our behalf), so I have no issue with seeing their geo-notices. Indeed, maybe doing even doing so will inspire Irish Wikimedians to do similar. Speaking of which... --RA (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mike Peel - nope, it's being geolocated accurately. @RA - that'd explain it all right. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth to look for a change, and might do some good anyway. Thanks, both. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a meet-up - all very welcome!

... I get the good ideas.

I am reluctant to give money to Wikipedia, as I donate already loads of time and quite some photos to Wikipedia. But I would be interested in a Fundraising Dinner. It would be a great way to raise funds for Wikipedia and get the missus happy again.
A bit of a hotel has nowadays Wifi, so the addicts can sneak away without going really missing. And and advantage of keeping the night in a hotel is that you can drink (and don't have to drive) and the babysitting service that most of them have.

What do you guys think about that? Night of the Big Wind talk 05:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC) As former hotelfoolemployee, I have some nice contacts with an hotel in Spanish Point, County Clare.

I'm generally on for a meet-up. There's a noticeboard thingy around here somewhere for them. The when and the where are usually the issues. Spanish Point sounds...bracing...but why not, if the price is right. RashersTierney (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd would be up for a meet up as well. There were a number of very good ideas on the Wikimedia Ireland mailing list during the year. However (without physical contact) they tend to die a death. Spanish Point sounds good too, if others are on for it.
The meet-up noticeboard for Ireland is here, but WP Ireland is probably the better trafficed board. So let's build agreement here first. --RA (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a month or even a date? Night of the Big Wind talk 15:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned. Circumstances don't allow me to commit too much into the future. RashersTierney (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
<extremely worried mode on>It sounds a bit that you have appointed me to Official Organizer of the Wikipedia Fundraiser Dinner and Ball 2012. True?<extremely worried mode off> Night of the Big Wind talk 17:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
'If the cap fits...' Hope we get a bit more feedback here soon. RashersTierney (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd be able (as you know) to make it to a meet-up in Dublin but Clare is a bit iffy, and if at the weekend would mean giving up my gigs. However, keep me in the loop. If a more sizeable group than last time can take part, I'll do my best to get there. And I'll notify a few other Irish Wikipedians about this page. Hohenloh + 22:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have never seriously suggested to keep the Fundraiser in Spanish Point, only that I have my contacts there. Far more reasonably from my point of view/living, will be Ennis or Limerick. At least they have a train station and a connection to a motorway. Spanish Point is extremely convenient for me, but difficult for almost everybody else
Anyone an idea how I can message everybody of this project then personally and manually spam their talkpages? Night of the Big Wind talk 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
More serious: somewhere in Limerick and as dates 18 or 25 February? (11 February us unsuitable because of high room prices and romantic obligations towards the missus that most of you guys will have) Night of the Big Wind talk 10:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. RashersTierney (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd have an interest, but I wouldn't be able to make a weekend. I'm also Dublin based. DubhEire (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Dublin is handier for me too, but willing to travel if there is a major surge in interest for a 'provincial' venue. Weekday or weekend makes no great odds. RashersTierney (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I meant to say that I couldn't do a weekend away, but could do any evening in Dublin. Sorry. DubhEire (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Wikipedia:Meetup/Ireland#Possible meet-up early 2012. RashersTierney (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a pity that I have to give up working on the meet up. First expensive repairs (clutch) and then an accident took me of the road (I am unhurt, only shaken). I can't do the reseach now in Limerick (an hours drive away) for the meeting, as I wanted to combine the fundraising dinner with something cultural (museum visit? castle visit? photo-competition?) But I won't abandon the idea... Night of the Big Wind talk 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Compromise solution for a template for counties of Ireland

See Template:Counties of Ireland by category for a suggested solution to the problem discussion on the talk page at Template:Counties of Ireland. I think that it represents a fair compromise. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion closed with the deletion of the template.
This is the unmpteenth time that we have had a lengthy discussion of a category or navigation template because of LL's view that the only significant geographical units in Ireland are those which are defined in law as currently-used administrative entities. On every occasion there has been a consensus to reject LL's view.
There have been plenty of discussions in which other editors have tried to persuade LL to change his mind, but LL holds to his view. That much is fine: LL is quite entitled to believe that he is right, and everyone else is wrong. However, it is quite clear by now that LL will not persuade other editors of his view. Continued efforts by LL to push his view amount to disruptive editing, per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Please, LL, give it a rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Route Map

I added a route map to River Liffey. It gives so much more geo information on the route of the river. It would be great to have placemarks in there to highlight significant features along the way, but how that works with Wikipedia has not been agreed yet with the Geo Coords Project. Let me know your thoughts on it. We could put routes for other Roads, Rivers, etc. Just thinking to myself here, but I would like to show that recent change in airspace routing that Ireland pioneered. There is no article that I can find on it. Anyone? DubhEire (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bing map, at the standard initial size is absolutely horrible. Can anything be done about that? ww2censor (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure. I think the idea is to just use the external mapping services with their initial settings rather than compensating too much. It does zoom to the route and it is on map view, which is why Bing looks a bit busy and horrible. There was suggestions of landing on the GeoHack page similar to standard coordinates and let the reader pick what map service and view to look at, but that is not there yet, if it even will be. DubhEire (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments

Hi members of WikiProject Ireland, last year we organized Wiki Loves Monuments in 18 European countries. Wiki Loves Monuments is a photo contest where people have to take photos of old buildings and upload these photos to Wikimedia Commons. It was a huge success with a lot of people participating and over 160.000 photos submitted in one month. This year we're planning to do it again. Would some of you people be interested in also running this photo contest in Ireland? Multichill (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this would be great idea, but not sure what is involved, therefore wary of what sort of commitment is required. Do you have any statistics on last years contest? I see Ireland was not involved. Perhaps you have stats somewhere by country on last years just to get an idea of the sort of participation by country / user / pictures. At Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2011 I can see something. DubhEire (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Roibeard Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh

Irish surname experts such as Wolfe, MacLysaght, and Grenham all state that Sands, and its variations, is a topographic surname of English origin. So, while I don't dispute Bobby Sands choice to use a different surname as the Irish form of his name, is there any way that this information can be added to the article? And is there a forum for Northern Ireland that this should be placed upon? Or am I perhaps opening up a can of worms best left alone? A version of this question has been on the article's talke page since 7 February 2012. Fergananim (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless it has been talked about in WP:reliable sources in relation to Bobby Sands, not the surname in general, then no it shouldn't be put in the article. It would be counted as WP:original research to put in editors own thoughts about what's important after searching around unrelated things. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
This is English wikipedia?12.237.165.2 (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't matter very much for this sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
If there is an article on the surname you could link to it in "See also". Mabuska (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
But Ó Seachnasaigh comes out as O'Shaughnessy which is nothing like Sands. Some phoney is winding you guys up.86.42.208.96 (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
He self identifies as that so the only person winding us up is either himself or someone doing a good impersonation of him. If he wanted to call himself Mac an Phápa who would we be to complain? Dmcq (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing to cement his "Irishness" Sands probably adopted a Gaelic surname from a non-patenral ancestor. Mabuska (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Certainly the English wikipedia uses Jesus instead of Yehosha.Red Hurley (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rescind Troubles restrictions

A proposal to rescind Troubles-realated restrictions has been made here. --RA (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments requested on Talk:Northern Ireland

An outside view has been requested here on talk Northern Ireland. A wider view of comments are also invited. --RA (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Clongownians

Category:Old Clongownians, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Film censorship in the Republic of Ireland

I created Film censorship in the Republic of Ireland as a split out from two articles. It will need some checking. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

gaelic names

What is with the names being in gaelic? It is confusing and against policy. The name should be used that is the most well known one. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What names? RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
You mean like the first line in Brussels? Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

volunteer or terrorist

there has been a debate on calling an IRA volunteer as a Terrorist on a Volunteer here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Troubles_in_Rosslea . As i am not from the region and lack knowledge aboutt he subject , i thought of informing you here. Please check, thanks -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The source did not call them a terrorist and we're supposed to avoid prejudicial terms like that anyway. As another person wrote there WP:TERRORIST is the guideline and it says to avoid it. I like the one trying to stick in terrorist saying some blog entitled 'maverick philosopher' was definitive! Dmcq (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the editors jump from member of an illegal organization to terrorist is covered by WP:SYNTH. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Parteen

Could somebody keep an eye on the article Parteen. I am in a disagreement with mr. Jdosu about the adding of unsourced information about Fairy Hill House. The conflict is now that far that I received a grumpy email (and replied just as grumpy). This is going the wrong way... Night of the Big Wind talk 00:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hospitals in Ireland

Category:Hospitals in Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Paddy not Patty

I invite you to the discussion on the Talk Page for Saint Patrick's Day. -- Evertype·✆ 13:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it has due weight for the article.IRWolfie- (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't be using WP:SLANG terms in the article at all. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
That reference you gave is simply inapplicable to this. One can still use formal tone in describing what it is called even if the name itself is not a formal one. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but that isn't what is being done in the article. It's simply being listed as an alternative name. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Simple - "In the USA the holiday is often called "St Patty's Day"." Which it is.Red Hurley (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Archaeological sites in the Republic of Ireland

Category:Archaeological sites in the Republic of Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for mergeing to Category:Archaeological sites in Ireland. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Various Ireland/Republic of Ireland categories proposed for renaming

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 15. 2 lines of K303 09:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

All-Ireland

I've been filling up Category:All-Ireland organisations, your assistance is appreciated, especially around the definition of an All-Ireland organisation. --KarlB (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Unionism

Category:Unionism, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Unionism (British Isles). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Should IRA members be referred to as volunteers?

At Talk:The Troubles in Rosslea a user insists on putting Irish Republican Army volunteer in instead of member and says the consensus onthat has changed since Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage and WT:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive_1#IRA articles: usage of the word "volunteer". They cite a user talk page here. Is it rreasonable to put in IRA volunteer when the source says member of the IRA? In fact is it reasonable to say volunteer anyway except in an article specifically using or dealing with the term? Dmcq (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Archive_14#Paramilitary "volunteers" / "members" - been there, done that. I refer people specifically to my post dealing with academic sources, instead of relying on the bias of news reports. 2 lines of K303 10:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I wish you had quoted that instead of the user talk page then. Also I find it strange that when I do a google books I get 4000 for "IRA volunteer" and 7500 for "IRA member". Dmcq (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between a volunteer and a member? I have no preference of the two, as long as the use is consequent in an artikel. So IRA member & UFF member or IRA volunteer & UFF volunteer. (UFF is just the first protestant organization that popped in mind). Not mixed. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree we should be consistent (both across articles and across organisations). --RA (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Member - I would tend to argue for "member". Both "terrorist" and "volunteer" (while both accurate) carry POV baggage: "terrorist" being a "bad" thing to call someone and "volunteer" being a "good" (or at least honourable) thing to call someone. "Member", I would argue, is both accurate and netural (i.e. it doesn't imply whether being a "member" is a good or bad thing e.g. one can be a "member" of a government and a "member" of a criminal gang). --RA (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I support the use of member as being the most neutral.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Volunteer as per the real most neutral, which is neutral according to reliable source not neutral according to the bias of editors.
  • Moloney A Secret History of the IRA page 149 "And such was the initial success of the new police interrogation centers at Castlereagh, as Strand Read in Derry, and as Gough Barracks in Armagh in extracting confessions from IRA Volunteers..."
  • English Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA page 197 "He was again arrested, in October 1976, in Dunmurry, Belfast, after an IRA operation: they had bombed the Balmoral Furnishing Company in a hit involving nine IRA Volunteers"
  • Taylor Provos: The IRA and Sinn Féin" page 104 "Sinn Féin existed in the shadow of the IRA and was of little interest to most IRA Volunteers"
  • McGladdery The Provisional IRA in England: the bombing campaign, 1973-1997 page 67 "Despite a serious setback with the loss of ten high ranking volunteers..."
  • Geraghty The Irish War: the hidden conflict between the IRA and British Intelligence page 4 "If an MI5 report made public in 1997 was correct, the movement secretly recruited and trained a new generation of volunteers"
  • Coogan The IRA page 403 Less than two weeks after the 'Kangaroos' episode, on 2 December 1971, two of the Provisionals' toughest volunteers.."
  • Harnden Bandit Country page 204 "Four IRA volunteers were arrested..."
  • Dillon 25 Years of Terror: The IRA's War against the British page 165 "None of those journalists suspected they were active IRA volunteers"
  • I could go on and on citing a never ending list of books to prove my point. Volunteer is the most accurate and correct term and reliable sources clearly have no problem whatsoever with it. The only problem is certain editors don't like it, well they should cease trying to enforce their own dislikes on Wikipedia content. 2 lines of K303 12:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I know you have to volunteer to become a member of the IRA. So most neutral? But the differences are so small that I don't see a real difference between a volunteer or a member, so I don't care. Night of the Big Wind talk 12:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The above sources use the word "volunteer" - but that is different from whether they discuss the neutrality of the term (and other terms that could be used). Similar, someone here could produce "more" sources that use one word or another - but that is different from whether "most sources" use one word or another.
Words in this area are frequently charged. Consequently, number games are often not the best way to find a neutral way of putting things. Indeed, the most neutral choice of vocabulary may not even appear in a reliable source because neutrality is about finding balance between sources and the vocabulary they use. --RA (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
So you've got sources that discuss the neutrality of the term then? It seems to be editors are inventing a dispute. 2 lines of K303 12:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Where's the evidence it's a loaded term? 2 lines of K303 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
To go along with RA's example, here is another example of the term being taken issue with that was reported in a reliable source. Jamie (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Volunteer per the sources quoted by ONIH. No sources have been provided to back the claim that "member" is neutral or that "volunteer" is a loaded term. This whole dispute is an absurd invention. Why must we repeatedly revisit this issue? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
@ONiH, if other editors are inventing a dispute over these terms then why are you pushed whether these men be described as "volunteers" or "members"? They were members of the IRA, right? In any case:

"...in December 1996, DUP councillor Gregory Campbell took exception to the wording of an inscription under a model of a member of the IRA, IRA Volunteer. Campbell stated that he did not like it because it was the term which the IRA used itself (Irish News, 31-12-96:1). Major Crispin Black, former Company Commander of the Welsh Guards in Northern Ireland, pointed out succinctly: The IRA view themselves as... [pausing and frowning] soldiers. We view them as a sort of murderous rebel. Likewise, UUP politician Jim Rodgers maintains that [l]oyalist gunmen were never 'defenders'. People who are not sympathisers of a paramilitary group distance themselves from military-style descriptions for such a group and its members by using inverted commas and other dissociating markers..." (Cordula Hawes-Bilger, War Zone Language: Linguistic Aspects of the Conflict in Northern Ireland, Francke: 2007, page 131 (ISBN: 9783772082009))

--RA (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, like I already said, because volunteer is the most accurate term? I object to accuracy being sacrificed to appease biased editors, when this proposal has been shot down time and again. What's the term for a member of an army? A soldier. What's the term for a member of the IRA? A volunteer. Ignoring the irrelevant part of the quote provided, it only appears to contain an objection from Gregory Campbell who isn't a reliable source. Despite Campbell's objection, reliable sources still use the most accurate term. So if academics aren't willing to sacrifice accuracy to appease the likes of Campbell, why should we? As demonstrated, while it may be how the IRA refer to themself it's also how reliable sources refer to them. 2 lines of K303 15:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The most pertinent piece from the source above, I believe, is the point made by the author: "People who are not sympathisers of a paramilitary group distance themselves from military-style descriptions for such a group and its members..."
The question isn't what reliable sources say (i.e. it is not a question of verifiability). The question is what is neutral (i.e. it is a question of NPOV). Yes, reliable sources use the term "volunteer". They also use the term "terrorist". And "member". And "IRA man" or "woman". So which should we use?
  • Should we use "terrorist"? I don't think so. Despite these people being terrorists, that is a loaded term. (WP:TERRORIST)
  • Should we use the term "volunteer"? I don't believe so either. That too is a loaded term. This is what the IRA call themselves and so it implies a sympathy towards that paramilitary group. (Francke:2007)
  • Should we say "IRA man" or "IRA woman"? Maybe, but these are surely too informal sounding for an encyclopaedia and maybe they would appear obscure to an international audience.
  • So what about "member"? These people certainly were members of the IRA. It is entirely accurate so. "Member" also avoids loaded terms. There is nothing contentious about it. It is very clear in its meaning as well.
Sure, "member" isn't sexy, like "volunteer" or "terrorist", but it does the job accurately, clearly and neutrally. Do you disagree? What's inaccurate about it, for example? --RA (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean member isn't sexy, RA? Surely you have read about throbbing members in those trashy bodice-rippers? Why do you think I write so many articles on paramiltaries? Just to get the chance to write the word "member"?!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC).
Irish history will never be the same for me again, Jeanne - "An IRA member was held in a British prison..." Oh, no... you've ruined it now. --RA (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure plenty of members (IRA, UDA, UVF, INLA, etc) were held in British prisons during conjugal visits!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Volunteer, which has been used by the organisation itself and many sources down through the years. However, would not be against the use of "member" as well, if it's used in the source. Hohenloh + 16:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Pertinent? Really? So is the author of that book suggesting anyone who has written about republicans or loyalists using the terms volunteer, brigade, brigadier or anything else without using inverted commas or "other dissociating markers" (care to name any, as I ain't got a clue what the fuck they are talking about) are sympathisers of a paramilitary group? You do realise that basically applies to pretty much anyone who has written a book about the Troubles right? 2 lines of K303 07:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Member There is a slight POV thing about volunteer but I'm not worried about that, the business is over and we don't have to be bothered about volunteer or defender any more. However volunteer is not the most common way to refer to them as far as I can make out. When I used Google books on IRA member without quotes I got 2 million hits and 200 thousand for IRA volunteer. With quotes I got 7660 and 3930 respectively. In google scholar with the quotes I got 686 and 282 respectively. I think member is just the most common way of referring to them. In fact if someone wants to say volunteer where the main source says volunteer or volunteer seems obvious for some reason I'd be quite happy with that, the problem in the case I came across was that the source said IRA member.Plus in the particular case the person was an officer though of course they are also quite often referred to as volunteers. Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Not this again! This has been discussed to death. Please provide a source which supports the claim that the term is POV or not neutral. --Domer48'fenian' 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The point as far as I'm concerned is that 'member' is much more common. Dmcq (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Two sources are provided above. However, irrespective of that, I never understand why people insist on use of a term or a way of saying something (whatever that is) when another, that everyone can agree on, exists and is just as good. Anyho... --RA (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, member, volunteer and terrorist are all reliably sourced. Per Dmcq above, the sources appear to use 'member' far more than they use 'volunteer'. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually that search doesn't show that, at least not in works specifically about the IRA. In those works, volunteer is used. 2 lines of K303 08:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Put them all in, this is an encyclopedia - "IRA members are variously referred to as "volunteers" (add citations), "members" (add cites) or terrorists (add cites).Red Hurley (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course they are referred to in both ways. The problem is when we just want a sentence referring to one of them in an article not about the IRA itself. Dmcq (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Volunteer. This had been discussed many times before, and it is tedious to have it reopened. As One Night In Hackney has demonstrated with his usual familiarity with the sources, "volunteer" is the term used in the scholarly works on the topic. (BTW, if IMOS is changed on this point, I want a parallel change for those serving in the British Army. If IRA people are to become "members", so should the British Army people.)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • member - it is neutral and not politically loaded. Surely by the proposers logic all loyalists should also be called volunteers. 82.132.248.134 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Of note: 82.132.248.134 has made few (3) contributions to Wikipedia apart from this, the most recent being a year ago.
  • Volunteer seems fine — it is broadly used in many works on the topic. Also, refers to the Irish Volunteers which subsequently became the IRA (along with others ~ IRB, ICA, etc) in 1919. Where is the problem? benzband (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Member is how I have always seen them described in all news reporting – print and broadcasting – about the Troubles. I associate the word "volunteer" with the history books I've read. In addition, the word "member" is less contentious. — O'Dea (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
That's funny. All the books I've read about the Troubles and the IRA use volunteer, as already demonstrated. Wikipedia endorsing Gregory Campbell's fringe viewpoint that the word volunteer is unacceptable is very much contentious. 2 lines of K303 07:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe you read my comment. — O'Dea (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Prevalence of usage in major Irish media

I searched the websites of RTÉ, the Irish Times, and the Irish Independent to see how many times they used the terms "volunteer" and "member" and the table below summarises my findings. "Member" is the term used overwhelmingly in the media. — O'Dea (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"IRA volunteer" "IRA member" "Member of the IRA"
RTÉ 2 546 3,660
Irish Times 1,440 18,400 467,000
Irish Independent 44 260 4,370
Sub-totals 1,486 19,206 475,030
"Volunteer" "Member"
Totals 1,486 494,236
I prefer academic and scholarly sources, which don't suffer from the same biases. 2 lines of K303 07:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
1. What biasses? Can you enumerate what they are and provide sources to confirm them, please? 2. Can you cite objective evidence that the three major media organizations are more biassed than academics? 3. Can you cite objective evidence that academics are more reliable than media sources who reported the Troubles over thirty years? 4. Do you actually imagine that academics themselves would maintain that the media in Ireland made a complicit agreement to call "volunteers" "members" over a thirty year period, while academic voices seeking to protest this unremitting bias were successfully stifled for an entire generation? And even if (hypothetically) academics ordained that we should call them "volunteers", (which they would not), we are not obliged to follow any such dictates. While you are free to maintain your preference, you cannot credibly advance the notion that academics are bias-free in an attempt to discredit established Irish media practice. — O'Dea (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Can anyone explain how it is "more neutral" for us to use Gregory Campbell's fringe viewpoint? 2 lines of K303 08:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In what way is this relevant? Dmcq (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd have thought that was obvious if you'd read it. No reliable sources seem to agree (at least not ones that have been produced to date), yet Gregory Campbell thinks it's inappropriate to refer to IRA volunteers as volunteers. So the question is quite obvious. How is it neutral to use Gregory Campbell's fringe viewpoint? 2 lines of K303 10:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The basis for saying member instead of volunteer in the question above is that they are referred to as members twice as often as they are referred to as volunteers in books and the ratio is far larger in google searches on the web. The particular place that stared this off referred to the person as a member. Wikipedia is about summarizing notable things in reliable sources. WP:Neutral point of view says we should follow those sources. That most people say member is a very good reason for saying that instead of volunteer, so what is your good reason for saying volunteer instead except it will get up somebody's nose in the DUP? Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Erm, I already dismissed that. In case you didn't get it, that search isn't solely representative of academic literature as it includes all sorts of fiction. Books actually about the IRA use volunteer. So that's the real neutral point of view, not what fiction books and the like say. In contrast the only person saying volunteer isn't acceptable is Gregory Campbell, yet somehow it becomes more neutral to do what he says. Not happening. You might also want to read WP:GOOGLE. 2 lines of K303 10:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Well since I see eight books quoted above for volunteer I'll counter with the first nine I came across about them that say member instead
The IRA and armed struggle - Rogelio Alonso
A Secret History of the IRA - Ed Moloney
The Terrorist List - Edward F. Mickolus, Susan L. Simmons
The IRA - Brian Hanley
The Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Banner 1969-2007 - Aaron Edwards
The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Féin, 1985 to Today - Brendan O'Brien
Decoding the IRA - Thomas G. Mahon, James Gillogly
The New Politics of Sinn Féin - Kevin Bean
The Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism - Timothy Shanahan
Do you want to up to ten and we can go on up? Or are you going to dismiss them as just fiction books? Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Taking each book in turn:
  • Alonso The IRA and armed struggle page unclear due to confusing format "Had the Army Council ordered the end of the strike no volunteer would have disobeyed such an order"
  • Moloney A Secret History of the IRA page 149 "And such was the initial success of the new police interrogation centers at Castlereagh, as Strand Read in Derry, and as Gough Barracks in Armagh in extracting confessions from IRA Volunteers..."
  • Mickolus The Terrorist List is a tertiary source covering the IRA in minimal detail
  • Hanley The IRA page 91 "such incidents were more unusual although a Volunteer was shot and wounded in Clare"
  • Edwards The Northern Ireland Troubles: Operation Banner 1969-2007 page 45 "As one former IRA volunteer"
  • O'Brien The Long War page 161 "a once-off payment of £100 to the family of an arrested volunteer"
  • Mahon Decoding the IRA page 125 "One IRA volunteer on the well fell after he was shot near the mouth"
  • Bean The New Politics of Sinn Féin page 87 "the experience of former IRA volunteer and community activist"
  • ShanahanThe Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism page 44 "As one IRA volunteer explained"
I'd like to congratulate you on providing so many sources that contradict the point you're making. Well done, you're my hero!! 2 lines of K303 10:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
That first volunteer was for the hunger strike,, not the IRA. Anyway as far as the list of eight ones that were cited as supporting 'volunteer' they also all say 'IRA' member' except I couldn't get access to Dillon's 25 Years of Terror. Other books of his I could access say IRA member, though he normally says 'IRA man if anything, e,g, God and the Gun "I later learnt a British Army sniper with a night scope had shot an IRA member". Anyway as to the others:
  • Moloney A Secret History of the IRA "His choice was Danny Morrison a bright young West Belfast IRA member who had been interned but then released."
  • Armed Struggle: The History of the Ira By Richard English "Early in 1988 a republican setback of a different kind occurred when three IRA members were killed - again in controversial circumstances - by the SAS."
  • Provos: The IRA and Sinn Fein By Peter Taylor "In those days you had an auxillary section of the IRA, you weren't actually a fully-fledged IRA member."
  • McGladdery The Provisional IRA in England: the bombing campaign, 1973-1997 "The security forces were not exempt from IRA attack, in an operation similar to the Manchester Rescue of 1867, th IRA attempted to rescue IRA member Frank Carty from his prison van as he was being transported to Glasgow on 4 May 1921."
  • The Irish War: The Hidden Conflict Between the Ira and British Intelligence By Tony Geraghty "The discovery of a bomb factory in Peckham was followed by the arrest of eight PIRA members on 15 July."
  • The IRA By Tim Pat Coogan "The general mood amongst the IRA members whom I met was that there'd be no going back to war, unless of course the Loyalists started to assassinate Republicans or embarked on a renewed campaign against Catholics."
  • Harnden Bandit Country "IRA members were ordered by their leaders to carry out the Kingsmill massacre"
So the citations that were provided to back up IRA volunteer versus IRA member do not do it on straightforward grounds either. The propblem is that both are correct and we should be using the term that is most usually applied. ANd I believe I have given good evidence of that by the google searches. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyway to make up for the one you didn't like how about
  • Ireland by John Patrick McCarthy "Funeral of Sean South, IRA member killed in raid on police barracks in Fermanagh, Northern Ireland takes place in Limerick with massive public attendance". Talks quite a bit about the Irish Volunteers and the National Volunteers and the Ulster Volunteer Force but I can't see the volunteers from the IRA in it. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No, Google searches do not provide good evidence of which term is more usually applied. It's a search engine using an algorithm that was not developed to answer questions like that. The best you can say is that if the hits for two searches are of the same order of magnitude (e.g. x,000 for A against y,000 for B) then they are comparatively common. To provide good evidence of which is more usually applied you would have to go through each and every one of the results, weighting it according to how authoritative you believe it to be, and checking for each one that the search term is actually used in the way you meant it, and that one of the two is clearly preferred over the other. Rather than get tied up in knots over which is more common, we should follow convention, and there is a long-standing and very successful convention on WP on the use of "member" and "volunteer". Scolaire (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I already referred him to WP:GOOGLE, he has major WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems whenever anything inconvenient is said. 2 lines of K303 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I just counted references to and check counts of members and volunteers in the first six of the eight books that were supposed to support volunteer and as far as I can make out only two of them actually used volunteer more than member when referring to somebody in the IRA - Taylor "Provos: The IRA and Sinn Féin" and Geraghty "The Irish War: the hidden conflict between the IRA and British Intelligence", the other two aren't searchable. If those are supposed to be the best sources available for volunteer as opposed to member then they don't make a good case for it. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Erm, yes they do. The whole point of your argument is that volunteer is an unacceptable term used by the IRA to describe themselves (you might want to think about how many organisations do the same by the way), when the evidence shows it's a term used by pretty much every single academic work on the IRA. By that I mean books about the IRA and/or the Troubles, not ones about something else entirely that have a few pages on them 2 lines of K303 07:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what the 'Erm, yes they do' refers to. What I objected to was people sticking in volunteer when the sources said member. To do something like that you need clear evidence that volunteer is a much more suitable term. It is not. In the case in question the person was an officer in the IRA so volunteer would have been inappropriate as a rank and as a general description member is used quite a bit more often than volunteer. Also the source used for the citation said member not volunteer. I see no reason to have people change member to volunteer when member is inappropriate, and less used and not in the citation. As I said before I have no particular objections to volunteer if volunteer is what the principal sources says, i.e. where it is the appropriate term for an encyclopaedia summarizing the sources to use. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So nobody can actually answer this question then? Hardly surprising.... 2 lines of K303 07:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Not in terms you will accept seemingly. Gregory Campbell's views are irrelevant to this. Dmcq (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for admitting the viewpoint that Gregory Campbell's viewpoint that volunteer isn't an acceptable term is, in your own word, "irrelevant". 2 lines of K303 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

UDA/UVF and other IRA leadership positions

I assume since there's such a problem with "militaristic terms" we're proposing to remove all mentions of "Brigadier", "Brigade", "Chief of Staff", "member of Army Council" and so on from all Troubles related articles? 2 lines of K303 08:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)+moar

Why do you assume that? Have you read the question? When a brigadier is referred to most sources refer to a brigadier or just an officer. Volunteer was not being used as a rank nor is it normally used that way, in the case I was looking at that started this the person was an officer in the IRA and was referred to as a member in the citation in the article. Dmcq (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read the question. This is a new question, designed to see whether people are willing to adopt an even-handed approach. 2 lines of K303 10:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Your assumption is wrong. There is no problem with militaristic terms. Your quotes were unnecessary as you were not quoting anybody when you said '"militaristic terms"'. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually I was, you should read the discussion. 2 lines of K303 10:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
:I am unable to find a reference to the term before it was used here in quotes. Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If editors want to drop the use of "volunteer" because it was the IRA's own term, then they should also drop the British Army's terminology. If the IRA's armed men are to become "members", then so should the British Army's armed men. That way we will have members of the British Army in a conflict with members of the IRA. It wouldn't reflect the sources on either side, but at least it would be an even-handed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason is that member of is far more common in the sources. Dmcq (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we use what the reliable sources use. Trying to use a naming scheme, on the idea of keeping both british army and IRA member names the same, which is not present in reliable sources is OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt to trap editors for possible ad hominem attacks to deride the opposition to hackneys previous proposal. 82.132.248.134 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In general, for the illegal paramilitary groups, I would support avoiding rank titles and instead describe positions and roles e.g. commander of the such-and-such a division, member of such-and-such a unit, etc. I don't think the same neutrality issues apply when speaking about members of the British and Irish armies or of the Gardaí or the RUC/PSNI. Not least because those organizations are involved in more than the Troubles conflict and so stating rank titles for members of those organisations does not imply a legitimacy around their role in the Troubles conflict. --RA (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
But media sources all use their rank titles to describe paramilitaries such as "Johnny Adair, West Belfast UDA brigadier", "Major Harris Boyle", "Billy Wright UVF Mid-Ulster brigadier", etc. etc.. Another thing, the UDA was legal until 1992 and the UVF was legal from April 1974 to October 1975. There is an anecdote in Ian S. Wood's book Crimes of Loyalty when Jackie McDonald, incumbent South Belfast UDA brigadier received a military salute during the 1974 UWC strike.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
No doubt, but just because other publications use these titles, does that mean we have to? If we use then then we risk lending legitimacy to them (and to these organizations). However, it is possible for us to avoid detracting legitimacy while not them as titles. That's a neutral line we have to walk: between lending legitimacy and detracting legitimacy, and to be neutral on whether these organisations were legitimate "armies".
Take Harris Boyle, for example. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to refer to him as "Major Harris Boyle". However, I would not see any problem with sating that Harris Boyle was a second-in command of the mid-Ulster division of the UVF — or that he had the rank of major in that organisation. I just think we should be careful about how we use these terms. They ("volunteer", "brigadier", etc.) are/were a part of the linguistic aspect of the Troubles conflict. We should be careful not to allow ourselves to become too taken in by them and so become a vehicle for the linguistic front of the conflict (regardless of whether it is now past or not). --RA (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I think I can agree with that okay. 'Major Harris Boyle' just sounds wrong but 'Harris Boyle had the rank of major in the UVF' is in line with Wikipedia's aims to summarize notable stuff in a neutral fashion. We don't censor stuff just in case it makes some organization sound more legitimate but we don't have to puff them up like the sources either. Dmcq (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
As said above, endorsing Gregory Campbell's fringe position is inherently not neutral. The terms are legitimate, as evidenced by their use in countless books about the Troubles and specifically the IRA. Can anyone even provide a work specifically about the IRA that doesn't use the term volunteer? I own pretty much all of them, and they all use volunteer. 2 lines of K303 07:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
And they say member more often. It has to do with sticking in volunteer when the citation said member and besides which the person was ranked an officer in the IRA. As for Gregory Campbell you've got the LVF and UVF and who knows what else terming themselves volunteers as well, if anything comments about volunteers applies to the whole lot of them on either side. None of that however is particularly relevant to anything that has been said here. Dmcq (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sabina Coyne

Was there ever a discussion about creating a dedicated article for Sabina Coyne, the current Irish first lady? I think there is a lot of material out there for her. She is certainly more than an adjunct to Michael D. Any comments? Fmph (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you write a short draft to show her notability (extending to a full article can be done later). But my feeling at the moment is just: who on earth is she? And yes, I follow the papers and the news. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I added a few scraps of information in January to her husband's article about her early life outside Ballindine. She is constantly spoken of as being "from County Mayo" but she comes from just inside the Galway border. If there are useful sources from which to build an article, it could be an interesting addition. (We don't call them "first ladies" in Ireland; that is the American term.) — O'Dea (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Gah?

Since WP:GAA is extremely quite as of late and this is the parent project can you have a look at Talk:Gaelic_football#.22Gah.22 Gnevin (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We all call it the Gah, phonetically De Gah.Red Hurley (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845-1849

Would anyone care to help me improve my article on Woodham-Smith's book?--RJR3333 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there anyone here besides O'Dea and me who read Woodham-Smith's book because we're having trouble understanding something she said about a transfer to Poor Law taking place in 1847 even though it passed the UKGBI's Parliament eight-ten years before then actually. --RJR3333 (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Certainly the Act was passed in 1838 and Irish Poor Laws is a good basic article.Red Hurley (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
:)) — O'Dea (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Georges O'Brien

George O'Brien (Irish politician) and George O'Brien (economist) need merging into a new stub, some expert please.Red Hurley (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Snappy (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Republicanism in Ireland has been nominated for discussion

Category:Republicanism in Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Politics of the British Isles

Category:Politics of the British Isles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --RA (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ireland category norms

Hi, I've been involved in a several recent discussions about categories in Ireland stemming from a nomination to delete Category:Hospitals in Ireland (which I don't want to discuss here...) I'm here because I'd just like to understand from people here the consensus view of this project on the category structure for Ireland. Note that I'm also not here to try to challenge it; I've started a broader discussion elsewhere about supra-national/divided state categorization - my purpose is really to understand the current consensus here.

This is my understanding, as of now: (mostly per my interactions with BrownHairedGirl and perusal of the tree, plz forgive any misunderstandings on my part)

1) For every category of things Foo in RoI, in general one should create an associated parent category Foo in Ireland (and of course, if there are relevant articles, a sister category Foo in Northern Ireland).

In graphical terms, then, for (almost) every major category, it should look more or less like this: 

               Foo by Country & Foo in Europe
               |            |            |
               |     Foo in Ireland   Foo in the United Kingdom
               |            |     |           |
Foo in the Republic of Ireland   Foo in Northern Ireland

Cases where the above does not apply:

  • categories that will never have a whole-island scope (for example, something like Category:Gaeltacht places in County Galway
  • special categories that are always All-island in scope, perhaps like certain sports - in which case, no point creating the RoI/NI below.

But, in general, as soon as you're dealing with national scope of RoI or NI, you should always create a Foo in Ireland category above it, in order to aid navigation.

A few examples, to illustrate the above - please let me know if I got these right:

2) If a category contains only things which are currently in RoI, it should not be called 'Foo of Ireland'

Examples:

3) Pages should always be diffused into the most specific category. For example, a currently-functioning hotel should always be placed either in Category:Hotels in the Republic of Ireland or Category:Hotels in Northern Ireland, and Category:Hotels in Ireland should probably be empty, or almost so.

4) The categories titled Category:Foo of Ireland are usually reserved for articles that are island-wide in scope, or cover organizations/entities/etc that are All-Ireland/32 county/etc, or if the category is historical in nature.

5) I'm not sure if this violates consensus, but something seems wrong, because the category tree is Category:Sport in the Republic of Ireland --> Category:Horse racing in Ireland --> Category:Horse racing in Northern Ireland

I'm not sure if the convention is, this is a bad idea (i.e. to have Northern Ireland show up underneath Republic of Ireland), or is the consensus that, no, it's not a big deal?

That is what I've picked up so far, and I realize haven't begun to scratch the surface - I'm sure there may be lots of complications around the word 'Irish' for example, how to classify historical events, etc - but in any case, I would love to hear from others here, to share what is your view of the current consensus on categorization. Eventually, if I could I'd like to request that you write it up as a guideline and place it on the talk page of Category:Ireland so future editors will be informed, and I'd be happy to help in drafting it as well. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? Bueller? --KarlB (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for the notification. Northern Ireland should not in any instance's appear as a sub-category of Republic of Ireland as that is horrendously misleading. Rather Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should be sub-categories of Ireland (Northern Ireland also as a sub-category of United Kingdom). Whilst that by on large is no problem - it might be for some editors who object to using Republic of Ireland to refer to the state of Ireland. This however could be remedied by using Foo in Ireland (island) and Foo in Ireland (state), however this would mean a hell of a lot of category fixing useless someone had a bot that could do it. Yet it's a solution none-the-less. Mabuska (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The Category:Sports governing bodies in Ireland is a mess of the RoI, NI and the provinces. But probably nothing that can be done about it. Otherwise the schema is as good as as is likely to get in a consensus here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. As far as NI being underneath RI, it seems to happen a fair bit within certain parts of the tree - in fact, there's a big one, which is that NI is listed as a Category:Territorial_disputes_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland, which puts all of NI under RoI. This may not be a big deal, I'm not sure, and I don't know if it should be fixed. What about the rest, above - does that fairly represent the consensus as you understand it? Are there additions/changes you would make to the list above? --KarlB (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Broadly, I agree with your diagram. I think there needs to be an open mind and flexibility. The simplest method may appear to be to have "Foo in Ireland" with "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" and "Foo in Northern Ireland" as children. However, there are occasions (cultural issues for example) where there "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" may not exist and there may simply be "Foo in Ireland" with "Foo in Northern Ireland" as a subcategory. ("Foo in Northern Ireland" should never appear under "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" though.)
Making a strict tree may lead to artificiality, where there would be empty "Foo in Ireland" categories except for two subcategories full subcategories. That should never happen. Many thing are best categorised at an island of Ireland basis. Additionally, if contents are sparse we should not shy away from single "Foo in Ireland" categories containing a mix of ROI and NI (or just ROI) content — or a "Foo in Ireland" category with content and a "Foo in Northern Ireland" subcategory. Obviously, any "Foo in Northern Ireland" category has two parents: "Foo in Ireland" and "Foo in the United Kingdom". However, we should should avoid "Foo in Ireland" having a parent of "Foo in the United Kingdom" and instead categorize those article twice.
An example I came across that may deserve discussion is Category:Politics by country, which has both Category:Politics of Ireland and Category:Politics of the Republic of Ireland as children. --RA (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. In the diagram above, it shows a link from 'in Ireland' to the 'by country' tree. Is there a consensus on whether that should always be present, or only sometimes? Looking at the tree, there is some inconsistency - sometimes it is Ireland in the {by country), other times it is RoI, sometimes it is both. I'm just wondering is there a standard, or is it up to the discretion of the editors whether one or both should be placed in the (by country) category? FYI I just looked at the tree, there are 589 cats from Ireland in the Category:Categories by country, with the following distribution: 146 RoI; 41 NI; 402 Ireland. --KarlB (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
any thoughts? Do other eds agree with the description above? Anyone willing to help write a 'Ireland categories guide' that would be a consensus-based description of how the categories should be structured? --KarlB (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
anyone? --KarlB (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Note: now found here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Ireland_Category_Norms. --KarlB (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Irish Republican Movement and Category:Irish Nationalist Movement

Category:Irish Republican Movement and Category:Irish Nationalist Movement, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Irish expatriates in New Zealand

Its been so long since I created this kind of category that I have forgotten how to do it. Could I get some help, and add Thomas Henry FitzGerald and John Chilton Lambton Carter. There must surely be dozens more. Fergananim (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Guinness (New Zealand politician) would you credit it.86.42.193.158 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Guinness was not expatriate Irish, ancestry yes, but thats it. Murry1975 (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics of the British Isles (again)

Wikipedians here may (or may not) want to contribute to a disussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles. --RA (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A review of the deletion of the above article is taking place at: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Politics_in_the_British_Isles. --RA (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a better link: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 30. It saves have a browser window filled with every other current deletion discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation of History of the Republic of Ireland

Input sought at Talk:History of the Republic of Ireland#Categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Establishments in Northern Ireland by year

There is a proposal at Categories for Discussion to rename Category:558 establishments in Northern Ireland and Category:1856 establishments in Northern Ireland. Comments are welcome on the discussion page at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 2#Establishments_in_Northern_Ireland_by_year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Irish Roman Catholic archbishops

Category:Irish Roman Catholic archbishops, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Ireland-United Kingdom relations / Politics in the British Isles

A merger of these two article has been proposed and is taking place here. --RA (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Population: village vs electoral division

I've noticed some articles on villages where the population in the infobox is like this, for Kinvara:

  • Village 1,160
  • Urban 563
  • Environs 597

With these {{Infobox settlement}} parameters: 

population_total       = 1160
population_urban       = 563
population_blank1_title = Environs
population_blank1       = 597

This is simply wrong. These numbers are from the 2006 census Vol.1; the "Urban" population is the from Table 5: towns and the "Village" population is for Table 6: electoral divisions (with "environs" being Village minus Urban). Most electoral divisions take the name of a village or town within them; typically the largest or the one nearest the centre. But this is an arbitrary concordance; there may be multiple census villages in a single ED, or none at all; some villages' population spans multiple EDs (browse tables 5 and 6 to see this). Calling Kinvara ED the environs of Kinvara village is as incorrect as calling County Donegal the environs of Donegal town. The fact that one is named after the other and encompasses it is not relevant. There may be a value in listing EDs and their populations somewhere in Wikipedia, but not in the articles for villages (or other features?) that happen to have the same name.

I believe the appropriate fields for Template:Infobox settlement#Population, demographics are as follows:

Sourced as in those two articles.

Hopefully this can be got right as the 2006 figures are replaced with the 2011 ones. jnestorius(talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

John Tyndall - nationality - RfC

A slow-burn edit war over the nationality of Tyndall has been going on for some time. It has been suggested (as far back as 2011) that a RfC be tried in an attempt to resolve this on-going issue, so here it is. Replies please to Talk:John Tyndall#Dispute about Tyndall's nationality. RashersTierney (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

split proposal

input welcome here: Talk:Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland#Split_proposal --KarlB (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Republic of Ireland

There is a Request for comment here at Talk:Republic of Ireland as to whether "Republic of Ireland" should appear in the opening sentence and, if so, whether there should be a second sentence briefly explaining the difference between the terms "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland". Scolaire (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

The Flag of Ireland article has been moved to the Flag of the Republic of Ireland. I don't think there was any consensus for this move, they was no discussion before the move anyway. Snappy (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have raised it at ANI Mo ainm~Talk 22:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I was going to do the same. Also, both pages are giving me errors at the moment. Snappy (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the article has been restored to its original location. Snappy (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A question on Category talk:Buildings and structures in Ireland

What reasons are there for using the categories "of Ireland" at all? Especially when most are completely split into "of Northern Island" and "of the Republic of Ireland". It seems like an useless specification in most cases. Brad7777 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

long story. see here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Archive_15#Ireland_category_norms. Further input welcome. --KarlB (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think in graphical terms, most categories should follow this system for starters as I believe this would be following the facts. 

                      Foo by Country
                |                         |
                |                      Foo in U.K
                |                         |
Foo in the Republic of Ireland   Foo in Northern Ireland

Brad7777 (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've created this here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Ireland_Category_Norms; I suggest that further discussion about the category structure take place there, so it is centralized and archived accordingly. FWIW, I ,more or less agree with you Brad, but consensus here seems to go a different way.--KarlB (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is complicated by the fact that, despite partition, Ireland as a whole still operates, and is treated, as a single country for many things.
Where it is not relevant, I agree that "Foo in Ireland" should be bypassed. However, there are lots of topics for which "Foo in Ireland" is a reasonable subcategory of "Foo by country". For example, Category:Rugby union by country.
And in other topic areas, both "Foo in the Republic of Ireland" and "Foo in Northern Ireland" are both reasonable subtopics of "Foo in Ireland". For example, as in the case of Category:Flags of Ireland, Category:Flags of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Flags of Northern Ireland. In that case, it would also not be unreasonable to have both Category:Flags of Ireland and Category:Flags of the Republic of Ireland in Category:Flags by country (as is the case).
Irrespective of this, any "Foo in Northern Ireland" should naturally be a sub-category of "Foo in the United Kingdom".
I've tried to build on your graph, Karl, along this reasoning. The categories in square brackets is may not always exist:
                              Foo by Country
                                    |
                --------------------------------------------------
                |                             |                  |
   [Foo in the Republic of Ireland]    [Foo in Ireland]      Foo in U.K
                                              |                  |
                                |-------------------------|      |
                  Foo in the Republic of Ireland      Foo in Northern Ireland

--RA (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Simplified the above graph.
                                   Foo by Country

                           |             |                  |
                           |      [Foo in Ireland]     Foo in U.K
                           |             |                  |
                           |-------------------------|      |
             Foo in the Republic of Ireland      Foo in Northern Ireland

— benzband (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Id request for purposes of consistency and long term archiving of discussions these be moved to the Talk page of the category norms. RAs point about ireland being in the country tree is already covered by the norms as an exception, but the language could of course be improved. --KarlB (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cork-Limerick-Galway corridor

Is there any merit in Cork-Limerick-Galway corridor? It just repakages stuff from the 3 cities. It could be merged into the Western Rail Corridor. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might be better as a disambiguation page for the Western Rail Corridor article and the Atlantic Corridor article. (I know that the Atlantic Corridor has been effectively put on the long finger for now, but as a concept , it is notable.) Apart from commercial sites who are using Wikipedia in lieu of actually writing copy for their websites, it's hard to find any mention of the concept of the Cork-Limerick-Galway corridor that isn't being used in the context of transport infrastructure and the improvement thereof. There is some mention on non-RS forums of how it might be a good idea to have such an entitiy for economic planning, and also a few politicians suggesting a Limerick-Shannon-Ennis-Galway economic corridor a few years ago, for example Tim O'Malley back in 2006 in the Limerick Leader. But I can't see that there is enough by way of sources (or reality, alas) to show a credible need for an article. I don't mind being proved wrong, however. But sources would have to found to demonstrate the notability of the corridor, beyond just transport. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland#Requested_move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland#Requested_move. KarlB (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Éire

Is it really neccessary having Éire as a separate article, would it not be wiser merging Éire with Ireland? Sheodred 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Éire should be summarised in an etymology section in Ireland IMO. --RA (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Leave it alone. Please leave it alone. Please, oh, please, oh please, leave it alone. -- Evertype·✆ 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with a summary in the etymology section. Sheodred 23:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Merge to Ireland.--KarlB (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but really it must be merged to Republic of Ireland because Éire is the state's name. Oh, but you can't do that either because it is both the Irish name of the state and the name of the island!!! Drat, who needs more problems? Another hot potato issue. ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Stupid to merge, Éire has been the name for 2,000+ years, Republic of Ireland for 63 years, many Éire-linked concepts just do not overlap with ROI and never will. How can you explain why the Eire Society of Boston is so called on the ROI page?Red Hurley (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Leave it alone. Please leave it alone. Please, oh, please, oh please, leave it alone. -- benzband (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Eamon De Valera

Due to temporary restrictions in place I am prohibited from editing on articles relating to the "Troubles" and nationality due to my deplorable and regrettable past-behaviour, unfortunately De Valera is included, however I am merely seeking input as to whether a .separate article based on factual criticism and controversies on Eamon De Valera is warranted is there seems to be an absence of such? Sheodred 23:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have separate point of view articles on a topic,, see Wikipedia:Content forking Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles that deal specifically with Criticism of..., etc. are not necessarily content or POV forks. For example Criticism of postmodernism is not a fork of Postmodernism.
I'm not so sure one is merited in this case. For example, there isn't yet a Criticism of... section in the article that could be spun out to create a new article. --RA (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Dmcq I am sure you aware that there are plently of articles that are dedicated as a critical analysis of subjects where relevant and as RA stated that does not automatically make them POV articles. Anyway to respond to RA..that is what I mean, it is really surprising there is section/critique based on the negative implications De Valera's policies/ideology/actions/politics had in a social and political context. Sheodred 08:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles should be on notable things, if they were notable enough there would be quite a bit in his article already. Just develop the Eamon de Valera article and if the whole article gets too large see if either there is some trivia to remove or a subsection which is notable in itself too split off. There is a bit of criticism of him in the overview section but really I don't see any traction for a separate notability of criticisms. I note a number of good things he did are not there either, like the way he insisted that a number of religions always be represented at official dedications rather than just Catholics, the way he tried to offer a place to Jews in Ireland before the second world war when they were being persecuted in Germany and his continued support for science and education in Ireland. So I can't say I view a special article dedicated to just criticising him with favour. Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Not unless you're going to balance with a 'In praise of..' section. In practice, all the "good" and "bad" things about him should be mentioned but worked into the relevant section of the article. Snappy (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, his critics were usually his political opponents, and his supporters were (yawn) his political supporters, so what would a new article prove either way? Nothing unique in that, it was ever thus.Red Hurley (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Camp, County Kerry

Well I just created this article, I was wondering if anyone could check it out for me? (I have to admit I "burrowed" a lot of the templates ie stub and places in Kerry, from other articles, will learn them off by heart someday!) --Éamonn Cálraighe (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking good! I've added an infobox and an extra reference. Also, the WikiProject Ireland banner on the talkpage (this goes on all Ireland-related articles): {{WikiProject Ireland|class=|importance=}}. benzband (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I'll certainly keep all that in mind if I create any more articles! --Éamonn Cálraighe (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Spurious Gaelic speakers statistics

Unregistered user Taoiseach has been littering county and province articles with dubious statistics about Gaelic speakers. Do they even check out? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You could try engaging with the user first on his talk page, before coming here. Snappy (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If you look at his talk page, he does not seem to have replied to any comments. That's why I thought that I might get guidance from colleagues on what to do with a rash of things that look like unsuported OR that's bordering on vandalism. But thanks for the considered input nonetheless. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final articles

We have articles on every single All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final game since 1887, such as 1923 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final. 86.40.104.30 recently requested a batch of redirects to every single one of those articles for the 1990s at WP:AFC/R, and I expect by analogy he'll also request the redirects for the earlier years. That amounts to 660 redirects, and to be honest, I'm too lazy to create them (I did create the 60 redirects for the 2000s). Those articles seem pretty much boilerplate with a template and at most two sentences of original content per article, backed up by the very same source for all pre-1999 articles. I wonder wether we'd be better off by merging them all into a single list.

There's a similar collection of articles on the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final, such as 1973 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final (and yes, that's another 660 redirects), but those articles seem to have more content, though many of them don't give their sources. I have no idea what to do about those. We already have List of All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship finals, but that has less information than the idividual articles. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just because there is less information available for those online doesn't make them any less notable. I don't think anyone would hear of merging all the FA Cup or AFL Grand Finals into a single list so why for any equivalent? The information to expand them exists - this just clearly hasn't been done for all of them yet, as you've pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.104.30 (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
As per the Hurling Championship, a list wouldn't hurt even if we keep the individual Football Championship Final articles. But currently we could merge all the pre-1999 football articles into a list without losing any information whatsoever - what little individual information we have on each game would fit into a "notes" column. For comparison, some of the early FA Cup articles are much too large and too well-sourced to be merged, see for example 1876 FA Cup Final. Huon (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a database of indiscriminate information see WP:IINFO "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Also as the third section there says " articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." and " omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."
If people want to set up an article they should show notability for each article with a citation and have some actual secondary source material to put into it. The article on the 1973 one for instance would be okay if it actually had some citations for the various bits in it but it doesn't. The earlier ones are just total rubbish with no secondary source justification or content never mind not having any citations. They are just database entries plus a copy of the team colours and who can actually say that even those are right for the time and weren't changed in between?Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That is a very sweeping generalisation. Not all the pre-1999 finals are "backed up by the very same source" or "total rubbish" as claimed above. I've gone through most of them to check their status. How would you go about merging 1983 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final for example? It's far too long and has only recently been merged from another article covering the same material. It's poorly sourced at the moment but that's no excuse for merging.
The idea that 1992 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final and 1993 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (won for the first, and so far only, time by Donegal and Derry) are somehow less notable than Kerry's umpteenth wins in the 2000s, for such reasons as having occurred before Wikipedia existed or before the web was widely used, is also ridiculous. As is the fact that this entire discussion is taking place due to the OP being by their own admission "too lazy" to create some redirects. As is the suggestion that any of the finals which did not take place in the 21st century be merged, while the 21st century finals be kept. There is no great difference between the state of the articles that occurs around 2000.
By the way, 1999 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final now has more sources than the 1876 FA Cup Final held up as the standard to be reached. Why then should it be merged for happening to have occurred before the 21st century began? 1887 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final shouldn't be too badly sourced now either, considering it was the 19th century and how most of the relevant information will be offline. Many of the others, barring a few exceptions at this point, should now have more than one source as well. Also, with books like this in existence covering "the story of the football championship every year since Limerick won the first All-Ireland Football Final in 1887", it shouldn't be too difficult to expand all of them. If someone went to the bother of merging them there is a real possibility that they would be unmerged again in the future anyway.
Finally, per WP:SPORTSEVENT, which hasn't been mentioned so far,

Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following: The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final.

Wikipedia's guideline on sports events make it clear that finals are permitted to be given their own entry, and that this applies across a range of sports such as American football, association football and Gaelic football. --86.40.97.73 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no point in assumed notability if nothing is stuck into the article showing anything notble. By the way I agree the 1983 one is very notable in itself even if for all the wrong reason but it looks to me like a copyright violation of the third citation 1983 All-Ireland final on Scannal. One should be writing things in ones own words rather than copying great big chunks. Dmcq (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I need to emphasise for people with a burning desire to immortalize things by sticking things into Wikipedia. That is just not how it works. Things need to be properly describe outside of Wikipedia in reliable sources first and then the stuff summarized in Wikipedia. There needs to be good citations in articles, if there isn't how is vandalism to be detected? So if anyone is thinking of immortalization they need to ensure the stuff is in a good stable place outside Wikipedia first and they need to make certain it gets recognised as a reliable source. It isn't easy. WP:SPORTSEVENT says about assumed notability but only actual sources confer actual notability - assumed notability can always be rejected at AfD. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Amendment requested for 'The Troubles' Arbitration remedies; input welcome

Hi all,

Interested editors are invited to review and comment on a request for amendment to the discretionary sanctions remedy (R5) of the The Troubles Arbitration case.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a request to stop the restrictions applying to British barons. You might be surprised at the link but there used to be a load of Ireland troubles related messing around with them. As far as I can see the main perpetrator was blocked indefinitely at the beginning of last year and there has been no problems since. Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

POV???

Maybe I'm a bit itchy, but to my opinion a number of edits of Jay Fitzgerald seem to be severely biased or POV. Can someone take a look at these edits to check if I am right (or wrong)? The Banner talk 02:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, some of it looks a bit itchy, and it's also apparently unsourced. For instance:
  • Catholic resentment was a major factor in starting the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the establishment of Confederate Ireland State from 1642 with Papal support. The Confederation was soundly defeated during the ruthless Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649–53. After the Act of Settlement in 1652, Irish Catholics were barred from membership in the Irish Parliament, and the major landholders had most of their lands confiscated under the Adventurers Act. They were also banned from living in towns for a short period. To the Cromwellians, all Catholics were heretics. Catholic clergy were expelled from the country and were liable to instant execution when found. Many recusants had to worship in secret at gathering places such as barns or around aMass rock in the countryside in good weather. Seventeen Catholic martyrs from this period were beatified in 1992.
  • The Irish Catholic hierarchy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was similar to the Gallican Church, and was less dogmatic than the Ultramontanist church that would develop under the harsh autocratic reforms of Paul Cardinal Cullen in the 19th century.
-- benzband (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Definitely biased. Fails to even make mention that one reason for the 1641 rebellion was to rid Ireland of the Protestant "heretics" as so defined by the Papacy, or that the rebels were as equally ruthless. Mabuska (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The language changes do not help. They are far from dispassionate. For an historical period that was characterised by brutality of all sides, we do not need to pour fat on the fire with such phrases. The Ultramontanist is true but I'd need some convincing that RC in Irl was like the Gallican Church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not the first time he see this type of changes from Jay Fitzgerald. Maybe he deserves a bit of scrutiny... The Banner talk 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It sounds biased, the majority of Irish Catholics in 1641 were unhappy but not to the point of fighting about it, just as most wanted freedom in 1919 but did not see why that needed more than voting. It took the Church all of 5 months to declare a Just War / Holy War at the end of March 1642. If you did that in the 1640s and then lost the war, you could expect a fair amount of suffering!86.42.216.186 (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Except for that Galacian church bit it does sound rather like the answers in a catechism of Irish history by the Christian Brothers. Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Ironically i'm currently reading a book by a former Christian Brother about the 1798 rebellion and his views couldn't be more different than his former organisation. But i agree that the editor's edits will need to be scrutinised to ensure such bias is cut out. Mabuska (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see what the bias is meant to be exactly; just politely asked them to tone down the rhetoric and explain neutrality to them. Do not edit war Banner, particularly when you are restoring original research. as it stands, both of you are near or have passed 3RR. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice one. Asking Jay to tone down and slamming a editwar/3RR tag on my talkpage. Sorry, mate, but that utter nonsense had to be removed. The last revert was 21 hours ago. I admit that I have a massive 3 reverts since "13:30, 20 August 2012‎". As far as I know that is not a breach of 3RR. And why just slam me and not the other guy too? The Banner talk 22:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I added the edit war tag to both talkpages. You appear to have been edit warring to restore OR also: [5]. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"Harsh autocratic reform" is too strong, given that the (my) church is still an elective and infallible autocracy. The Gallican church influence in the 1700s is about right, due to the Jacobite influence. Cullen was only going with the flow, others like John MacHale voted with the minority against papal infallibility.Red Hurley (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Football in Northern Ireland

Should Category:Football in Northern Ireland be a disambiguation category, pointing to association football (aka football aka soccer) and gaelic football categories? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. benzband (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I would still argue that football in Northern Ireland is used more so to mean association football than Gaelic - but if everyone goes for it, who am I to object. Mabuska (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 Done. benzband (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist

Would anyone with an interest mind putting New Inn, County Tipperary on watch. Getting a bit tedious catching all the IP dross. RashersTierney (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, IPs of this kind don't mind how many times they are reverted, and don't acknowledge messages on their user talk pages, they'll just gaily go on adding the same paragraph. My advice is to open a section on the talk page, saying that the content is unsourced and inviting the IP to discuss. When they fail do do so, ask for semi-protection. Scolaire (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a welcome message on the IPs talk page, per WP:BITE. It never hurts. Scolaire (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right of coarse. I was hoping to find an alternative to contemplating the 'protect' route on a 'local' article. Late night wishful thinking. RashersTierney (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Chapelroyal-ceiling.jpg

file:Chapelroyal-ceiling.jpg has been tagged for immediate deletion as being unsourced -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Máirtín_Ó_Murchú

I'd welcome some input on the Talk:Máirtín_Ó_Murchú page, we have an editor from down under questioning the notability of Máirtín Ó Murchú as a scholar of Celtic Studies ... Akerbeltz (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows:

The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 20:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Republic of Ireland

I think we should nominate Republic of Ireland for good article status, since it is a really good article, and definitively improved since 2010. --Lucky102 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the GA review of 11 August 2010. At a quick glance it does not appear that any of the minuses have been addressed at all. It is still verbose, for example the "Name" section is far longer than it needs to be; there are still whole paragraphs without any citations; it is still nearly 150kb long, and needs to be more focused on the main points; there are still unsourced claims in the history section, for example, that might be contentious. An "article improvement drive" would be a better idea than a GA nomination at this point. Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It's an inactive project.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for Irish government departments

Several categories have recently been created for Irish government departments. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 10#Irish_government_departments about whether they should be renamed, where your comments will be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Irish footballers

Why is this stub needed? Surely the Republic of Ireland association footballers stub is sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.133.5 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For a little context to this question (for other editors) please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovers Forever -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Can the issue be discussed without your personal crusade? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.213.252 (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are any admins that visit this WikiProject, please help this guy out. He's literally begging to be slapped with another block for sockpuppetry (WP:EVADE). -Thibbs (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

So the issue is out of bounds because you want to make it personal? Any admins want to discuss like adults? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.218.87 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also note: This kid is hopping IPs like crazy (above we see 3 different ones. Sometimes it's from home, sometimes the library, sometimes school, etc.) so anyone taking action will have to play a bit of whack-a-mole with him. 72-hour blocks are probably the max that would be advisable. -Thibbs (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You are obsessed. If anyone is a child it is you. Who cares from what location a question is asked? This is WikiProject which is here to advance subjects. Its not a blog for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.218.87 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Irish caste?

Editors on this WikiProject may be interested in the ongoing RfC on Talk:Caste. The article lists Ireland as a region that has historically had a caste system, along with other countries, claims which some editors have found controversial. Editors critical of the current article have argued that the article has become a WP:COATRACK used to push the view that the caste system is not linked to Hinduism or India, while others have defended the article's portrayal of the caste as a universal phenomenon. The input of editors familiar with Irish history would be most helpful in this discussion. Was Irish society a caste? Is that a mainstream view and should Ireland be listed?--Ninthabout (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that I am wrong, but as far as I know a caste and a social class are different things. And in teh article Caste it is treated as one and the same. The Banner talk 16:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The taking of slaves was a common thing in Irish history, well into the late Medieval period. Clearly the lot of slaves was not a happy one. But it was not a generational thing, not a thing that was designed to keep a group of people of perpetual inferior status. The clan system, it could be argued, allowed even the lowliest member of the clan to have a voice in the election of the Taoiseach. Laurel Lodged (talk)
On Gaelic Ireland#Structure it says that "Although distinct, these ranks were not utterly exclusive castes like those of India. It was possible to rise or sink from one rank to another. Rising upward could be achieved a number of ways, such as by gaining wealth, by gaining skill in some department, by qualifying for a learned profession, by showing conspicuous valour, or by performing some service to the community". That's all referenced from The Brehon Laws: A Legal Handbook: Chapter V by Laurence Ginnell (1894). ~Asarlaí 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Have to disagree Laurel, the voters were in a clan's Derbfine. The rest of us got to shout approval in the background. FJ Byrne says that the main castes were the derbfine, the bards, farmers (boaire and ocaire) and slaves. You could rise in the ranks but the derbfine had to be killed off or at least blinded/maimed to be replaced. Laurence Ginnell is long dead and not up to speed. As for caste today, you have a) Van Morrison and U2 b) civil servants c) industrial workers d) farmers e) professionals f) travellers g) politicians.Red Hurley (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thiepval Bombing 1996.jpg

image:Thiepval Bombing 1996.jpg of the Thiepval barracks bombing has been nominated for deletion for failing NFCC -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Central government of the Republic of Ireland

Category:Central government of the Republic of Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So far the majority of contributors to the debate there have been from editors not even resident in Ireland. Will nobody from the project make a comment. Is the fate of the Ireland govt category to be decided by absentee landloards. It's all reminiscent of 1800 again when the parliament dissappeared without a whimper from the natives. We can do better than that. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I have replied there. The Banner talk 13:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC) still a bloody foreigner answering, but at least I live in Ireland
Laurel, please withdraw that disgraceful slur on other editors. The fact that some editors are amongst the million of Irish emigrants has no bearing on the discussion, and comparing them to absentee landlords is a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The metaphor was overly flamboyant. I withdraw it. But my invitation to contribute to those based on the island of Ireland, whose expertise may be presumed to be better than non residents remains. I would contrast this apology with your own stance when another editor on that discussion remonstated with your own attacks on me that you "stand by my comments". Consider Matthew 7:5. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Uncle Tom and Uncle George.jpg

File:Uncle Tom and Uncle George.jpg (Thomas Westropp Bennett and George C Bennett) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Taoisigh of Ireland

Category:Taoisigh of Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Taoisigh. In the same discussion, Category:Spouses and partners of Taoisigh of Ireland has been nominated for renaming to Category:Spouses and partners of Taoisigh.

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at these categorys' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Office of the Taoiseach

Category:Office of the Taoiseach, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger to Category:Department of the Taoiseach. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Irish Ministers for Finance

Category:Irish Ministers for Finance, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Ministers for Finance (Ireland). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Irish Ministers for Foreign Affairs‎

Category:Irish Ministers for Foreign Affairs‎, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Ministers for Foreign Affairs (Ireland). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joseph Rafferty (murder victim)

This article - Joseph Rafferty (murder victim) - has been put forth for deletion. All comments and suggestions welcome. Fergananim (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating churches in Dublin.

An editor reverted some name changes of mine for certain Dublin churches. He seemed to be unaware that many churches in Dublin have the same name and so need to be distinguished from each other. As he's not Irish, I went to the trouble of writing a short history by way of background in the following terms: "The moves have been made to distinguish two churches from each other that happen to be in the city of Dublin. Ireland is unique in have parallel successions in bishoprics for the two main churches. This parallel state of affairs is mirrored in the naming of the churches. Once a parish church came into the possession of the established church, the Catholic adherents, despite being in the majority, were obliged to quit the premises. Following the relaxation of the Penal Laws, it gradually became possible for them to build churches of their own in the parish. In many cases, this second premises had the same name as the original parish church. So then, it is sometimes necessary to distinguish between the two parish churches. Parentheses is the wiki etiquette for making distinctions of type (for example a cork for bottle as opposed to the city of Cork). Comma is the wiki etiquette for making distinctions of location (for example Paris, Texas as opposed to Paris, Tennessee). Where there is only 1 church of the name in Dublin, I have not made a type distinction. As regards the location, best practise tends to be to use the name of the city rather than the street name. See for example St Catherine's church which lists nine different cities around the world, not 1 of which uses a street name after the comma. Or St James' church which also lists nine different cities around the world, not 1 of which uses a street name after the comma." The best example of this is St. Audoen's Church, Dublin (Church of Ireland) and St Audoen's Church, Dublin (Roman Catholic), both of which are in the same street in Cornmarket. DEspite this, the editor does not want to use this principle for the churches St. Kevin's Church, Harrington Street, Dublin and St. Kevin's Church, Camden Row, Dublin, preferring to use street name instead of denomination as the disambiguator (not even in parentheses). What do you think ought to be the policy ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would you assign a religious denomination to a church, when the church is no longer in use and ruined? I would chose something like: Church name >> church country >> church county >> church place >> church neigbourhood >> church street >> religious denomination. The presence of two churches with the same name in the same street is highly unlikely, so the use of the religious denomination would, in my opinion, an option of last resort to disambiguate. The Banner talk 22:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you sewriously suggesting that the article name be "St. Kevin's Church, Ireland, County Dublin, Dublin city, Camden Row" ?Isn't that just a wee bit clunky? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think ">>" represents order of precedence, not a comma. If two churches have the same name and are in the same country, county, place and neighbourhood, The Banner would give precedence to street over religious denomination. Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I guess I was unclear with that. You can read ">>" as "when still the same, look at". Just as long to you have a difference. The Banner talk 13:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
"Why would you assign a religious denomination to a church, when the church is no longer in use and ruined?" Possibly because both articles have "church" in their titles, both are articles about the churches as churches, and each states the denomination of the church in the article. If one were, for instance, an article about the Dublin Latin Mass Chaplaincy building, it ought to be named "Dublin Latin Mass Chaplaincy building, Harrington Street, Dublin", not "St. Kevin's Church".
By the way, why this insistence on "Roman Catholic"? I have never seen the Church of Ireland referred to in any Wikipedia article as "Anglican Catholic", so where is the need for disambiguation? Irish people, Catholic and Protestant, always refer to a church as "the Catholic church on such-and-such street", not as "the Roman Catholic church". I'm sure they do in Britain and America as well. Scolaire (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
It's still Roman Catholic maybe because plenty of us are Irish Catholics and Lapsed Catholics, and there are one or two Anglo-Catholics as distinct from the Anglican Catholics?? On balance I agree with Laurel Lodged on this one.Red Hurley (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"Irish Catholic" and "Lapsed Catholic" both refer to members or lapsed members of the (Roman) Catholic Church. How often is "Anglo-Catholic" used in Wikipedia that there is such a need for disambiguation? Scolaire (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah well now, there was that Dáil question on the Greek Catholic Church in Romania, and we have all the new arrivals from the Ethiopian Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Old Catholic Church and so on. It would be much handier to assume that Catholic only covers Roman Catholicism in Ireland, so maybe we should add it into the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles.Red Hurley (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, please comment.Red Hurley (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

RM for Ireland, ROI

It's that time again. There's an RM to rename Ireland and Republic of Ireland over at WP:IECOLL. Kauffner (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

All-Ireland Senior Football Final

Contributors here may be interested in this discussion where it has been proposed to remove the All-Ireland Senior Football Final from ITN/R. --RA (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Townlands in County Antrim, etc

8 categories of townlands in counties north and south of the border, including Category:Townlands in County Antrim , all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming to the format "Townlands of County X". If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Irish politicians by century

Category:Irish politicians by century, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with its two sub-categories. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 2011

Category:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 2011, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger to Category:Candidates for President of Ireland. The same nomination also proposes a similar merger of Category:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 1997, and Category:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 1990.

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dublin Professorships

Category:Dublin Professorships, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Professorships‎ at the University of Dublin or Category:Professorships‎ at Trinity College, Dublin.

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

'Lower-upper-middle class'

It hasn't been a feature of articles on settlements in Ireland before (that I've been aware of), but are we now 'class'-ifying areas by arbitrary socio-economic perceptions, à la recent edits at Glasnevin lead? My personal opinion is that any such attempt, even if ref'd, will generally be subject to point-of-view. RashersTierney (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's total pov, I've removed it. Snappy (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gaelic games governing bodies in Northern Ireland

Category:Gaelic games governing bodies in Northern Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Category: Linguists from the Republic of Ireland

The category Irish Linguists was replaced a week or so ago by Linguists from the Republic of Ireland. This makes no sense for any linguists born in Ireland before 1922 (or 1949, as the case may be), for example Thady Connellan (1780–1854), whose category has been reverted by a bot. Could someone take a look at this - I'm not very au fait with the current category process. Hohenloh + 17:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It was renamed as part of a wider renaming process, see here. You could create a Category:Linguists from Ireland and make it a parent of Category:Linguists from the Republic of Ireland then add Thady Connellan to the parent. Snappy (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant solution Snappy. Always suspected that you were a cunning linguist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

When is a place a town?

I recently found myself in a rather heated debat about what a town is, in relation to several templates about counties and their inhabited places. The focus was mainly about Template:County Cork and Template:County Mayo. Problem is that there is no legal definition about what is a town in Ireland, unless it has a town council. Most of the discussion and sources provided can be found here: Template talk:County Cork. Central to the question: who defines a place as a town? The Government & the Local Government Act ([6] Pages 188 and 195-197) or the Central Statistics Office ([7] Page 17, definition of Census Towns). To make it more confusing: many places are called market towns because of their right to hold (cattle?)markets, but this is no official status.

So, any advice about what is a town in relation to the mentioned templates is welcome. The Banner talk 22:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am the person who has been in dispute with The Banner about this. I request that discussion of this question be conducted here to keep it centralised, rather than at the County Cork template talk page, as that is a rather arbitrary location for the discussion, since the matter in question applies to all the county templates. But by all means, refer to that talk page to get a sense of the dispute. I will return here to describe my own arguments, later. — O'Dea (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Logainm.ie should give reliable info on this. The web site is located at http://www.logainm.ie/. Type in the name of the settlement (it 'reads' English names too!). Cathair indicates a city, baile indicates a town, baile fearainn indicates a townland. Or click on the 'English version' at top right-hand corner. RashersTierney (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if this website can solve the problem. A quick check revealed that the place I call home is mentioned as town on the website. That is correct, when you have in mind that Milltown Malbay has market rights... The Banner talk 12:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your point. The site confirmed that Milltown Malbay is a town, so I don't see any discrepancy or fault with the site. Am I missing something? RashersTierney (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
More then likely I was unclear. In all the involved county templates, the category towns is reserved for towns with their own town council. Milltown Malbay has no town council and is not mentioned in the template as a town but as a village. Only Ennis, Kilkee, Kilrush and Shannon have their own town councils and are mentioned as towns. The problem is that towns have no official status, unless they have a town council. Mr. O'Dea is now mixing the official towns with market towns, census-towns and so-called towns, giving quite a few places a status they do not possess legally. Off course, I will be an option to split the towns in the template into "official towns" and "other towns", but I doubt if that is the best solution for Wikipedia as it creates confusion. The Banner talk 14:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with narrow definition of a town being only an area with a town council. There is more than one way of defining a town, there is the legal definition, the CSO definition, the Logainm definition and most of all common usage. The legal definition is way too narrow, being an updated list of Urban district councils and Town commission dating from the 19th century. Common usage and common sense tells us what settlement is a town and what isn't. Snappy (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The town council definition is too narrow. However, I'm always wary of "common usage" as a criterion. Who's to define that? Logainm or CSO is probably the best way to go. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
For settlements in the 6 Counties, Wikipedia follows the standard set by NISRA, which says that a town is any settlement with at least 4,500 dwellers. We need a consistent, official government standard like that for the rest of Ireland. Many villages crave the prestige of townhood, and many towns crave the prestige of cityhood, but if we let them all choose for themselvs then the word would become meaningless. ~Asarlaí 20:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Mr. O'Dea came up with Part 17 of the Local Government Act, 2001, section (2) (a) states, "Qualified electors of a town having a population of at least 7,500 as ascertained at the last preceding census or such other figure as the Minister may from time to time prescribe by regulations, and not having a town council, may make a proposal in accordance with paragraph (b) for the establishment of such a council.". The number of 7500 looks to me like a reasonable number as a cut off point BUT ... to make clear how fuzzy the term is used: it would mean that Kilrush and Kilkee would not qualify as town on sheer numbers although they do have a town council. The Banner talk 20:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Even worse, it speaks about "electors", so people with the right to vote. So scratch all kids from the list. Depending on the definition of electors (local or national right to vote) you can scratch many or all foreigners. So you need far more inhabitants then 7500. The Banner talk 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
All good points. Limiting "town" to those with town councils won't work, as the cutbacks include the disbandment of some town councils in the next few years. I would say NISRA's 4,500 is about right.Red Hurley (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
But the NISRA is only active in another country... The Banner talk 21:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

So, one thing is clear: it is a complete mess. The only official definition is way to narrow compared with the common use of the term town. The common use is way to wide to be usefull. How can we balance this? The Banner talk 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, that as part of cutbacks/local govt reform many of these town councls will be abolished, so there won't be many "official" towns left. Perhaps we should go with the 7,500 cut off from the 2001 act, regardless of whether current towns qualify or not.
Perhaps we can "ignore" the common use of the term. In fact, describing a town (and then only for use in the mentioned templates) as: a town is a place with an official town council and/or with ... inhabitants. The Banner talk 20:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
All Town Councils to be abolished under proposals announced today, so the description of a town as a place with a town council will no longer do. Snappy (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the government . Okay, new try: a town is a place that once had an official town council, has (or had) amrket rights (for market towns) or with at least 7500 (arbitrary number, please shoot) inhabitants. The Banner talk 22:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Logainm is not reliable. There are towns and villages that are simply listed as "Population centers" and some hamlets listed as villages. It is not an accurate source for this. Some form of governmental census or residential information should help. For Northern Ireland NISRA (as already stated above) provides a categorisation of each settlement. Mabuska (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to go the route of NISRA, then in the Republic the CSO is the equivalent. This is what they say on towns. I do think the statement that Logainm is not reliable is rather sweeping. It is reliable for what it is intended to be. Neither source is definitive on what constitutes a town in Ireland. Logainm uses data from CSO and NISRA on the question of 'placename categories'. RashersTierney (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What about these "Municipal districts" in the proposed 2014 reforms? Any use? Snappy (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion petered out a bit, but now the question is raised again on the template about Roscommon. My last try was: a town is a place that once had an official town council, has (or had) market rights (for market towns) or with at least 7500 (arbitrary number, please shoot) inhabitants. That proposal got no replies, so I don't know if it has support or disgust. A new attempt, with new numbers:

A town is officially a town (for use in the County templates) as:

(1) the place formerly had a town council or town commission
or
(2) the place is or was a market town (i.e. holding the right to host markets)
or
(3) the place has at least 2500 inhabitants

Lets here your comments. The Banner talk 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I fully understand this proposal. Do you mean that a town that satisfies any one of these criteria would qualify as a "town" on Wikipedia, or that one of these criteria should be selected as the standard for defining a town on Wikipedia?
Would Number (2) be fair to towns that did not develop as market towns (e.g. garrisson towns, port towns, etc.)?
The figure of 2500 inhabitants would certainly be more appropriate than the 7500 figure for a small country like Ireland. JD2 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Any of the three would make them qualify. In my opinion (2) is fair as criterium, as it is an official right. One should be able to verify that in legal documents. The Banner talk 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. JD2 (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no objections. So I will change "Only for places with their own official town council" into "A town is officially a town (for use in the County templates) as the place formerly had a town council or town commission; or: the place is or was a market town (i.e. holding the right to host markets); or: the place has at least 2500 inhabitants" The Banner talk 19:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged and counties - moves and topic ban?

Over the last few days, User:Laurel Lodged has made hundreds of page moves of the kind:

I doubt there was any discussion about this. How do folk feel about this?

I noticed these moves when he/she requested that the MOS be changed along the lines that it be practice GAA teams be referred to in a similar style.

For my 2¢, Laurel Lodged's perennially bizarre approach to the issue of counties of Ireland (in all their many forms) is going on too long. I'm of a mind to propose that he/she be topic banned from anything to do with the counties of Ireland. --RA (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this very annoying. He has changed the titles (which IMAO he shouldn't have done), but then the old name remains in the article text, infoboxes, navboxes, etc. Before he started on this he changed the names of many churches in Ireland, which had to be changed back. What to do? Hohenloh + 01:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
If there is any move to have him/her topic-banned I will certainly support it. As you say, the behaviour has been going for years now, and still the idea of consensus hasn't even begun to register with him/her. Scolaire (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Article titles should be commonname (unless ambigous). A topic ban on county names? No, I would disagree. A restristion to gain consensus first before moves, I would support (and am now suggesting). Murry1975 (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not involved in this project, just happened to see this. I only comment because I could not figure out the logic of the story here. But that does not seem to be an isolated incident. There seem to be serious issues with respect to user behavior regarding page moves and categories, as can be seen here, as well. This problem seems to exist across projects,and a broader solution via curtailment may be needed. Just FYI. History2007 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The rationale for the GAA movesis explained in the rationale supplied for the IMOS rule change that I suggested. That is: "The rationale for this proposal is that it might prevent future outbursts of the Derry/Londonderry hostilities erupting from the GAA theatre of action. There have been several attempts in recent months to ignite frsh hostiliites under the pretense that the GG county board should be an excetion to the Dery/Londondery rule and so should be allowed to call itself "Derry" alone along with the "County" prefix. These attempts have been rejected at WP:Cfd - see County Derry of October 19th. Nevertheless it has not deterred people from using the close alignment between the area of (former)administrative counties and areas under the administration of GAA county boards to create lots of "County Derry" articles and categories. The editor Brownhairedgirl, in her comments on that case said, "1.That Derry GAA does not use the term "County Londonderry" in its organisational structure" and "2.The County Board of Derry GAA includes clubs from outside County Londonderry. So addition to the geographical categorisation, we also need a category to reflect the organisation of the sport. Referring to "Derry GAA" rather than to "County Derry" makes it clear that the category's scope is not that of the geographical county." Is it not reasonable to suppose that that rationale was in the mind of the closing editor on that case? So this proposal takes that decision on board and attempts to make it clear that what is in scope in the wikilink is a GAA entity, like Derry GAA or New York GAA or indeed any of the GAA "counties", not the administrative county. The airbrushing out of this important distinction by the immediate and incessant use of the pipelink would be lessened if this rule was adopted." Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the copy-and-paste from WT:IMOS, but I cannot see how the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute is a rationale for moving hundreds of pages that have nothing to do with Derry. The problem here is that what appears obvious to you does not appear obvious to the rest of the Wikipedia community, and you seem incapable of taking that on board, or even testing the waters, before causing widespread disruption over large numbers of articles. Scolaire (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No, Laurel Lodged is doing nothing wrong. He just makes clear that, for example, County Waterford and County Waterford GAA are diffrent legal entities. It is not even always the case that GAA counties work in the same area as the Goverment Counties. In most cases, it is not necessary to distinguish between the two, but the trouble with County Derry made it clear that something had to be done. In this case, adding "GAA" to the names of all GAA Counties. It is no problem that the common name stays in the article. The Banner talk 12:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Banner. That's it in a nutshell. As an example see CLG Eoghan Rua which is in Derry GAA but draws its support from County Antrim. It is wrong to give the impression that the area under the administration of the GAA County Board of Derry is co-terminous when it is not. There are other examples, such as Clann na nGael GAA (Roscommon) which is technically in County Westmeath (the boundaries of Athlone encompassing both banks of the Shannon), and Piltown GAA. In the latter case, the clubs own website acknowledges that it draws support from 3 counties: "At secondary school level, the boys currently playing for the club are divided into many different secondary schools stretching from Waterford to Kilkenny. The secondary schools where boys from the club are involved are CBS (Carrick-On-Suir), Comeragh College (Carrick-On-Suir), Colaiste Suire (Mooncoin), Scoil Aireigail (Ballyhale), St. Kieran's College (Kilkenny), Kilkenny College, De La Salle (Waterford), Abbey Community School (Ferrybank) and Newtown (Waterford)." It matters not a whit how Kilkenny GAA chooses to define itself. What matters is that that definition should not confuse people unfamilliar with their organisation structure. Inserting the letters "GAA" after each county board level entity like senior hurling championships etc will help in this regard. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to say in an article about a game that the place mentioned is not exactly coincident with some old county boundary. If people are interested they can follow the link. There is no requirement to disambiguate with articles and doing so in a way which is unusual or disrupts the flow just makes for bad articles. For instance one doesn't need to distinguish between Ireland the island or Ireland the country if it is clear from the context and that is a much bigger difference than any of these GAA counties. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Re "There is no need to say in an article about a game that the place mentioned is not exactly coincident with some old county boundary." I agree. Have I written anywhere that that was what I wanted? Re "disrupts the flow", I think that my "mature reflection" amendment above is a good compromise that should address this issue, improving flow while doing a relatively unobtrusive disambig at the same time. Re "one doesn't need to distinguish between Ireland the island or Ireland the country", I disagree. Almost every article uses the [ [ Republic of Ireland|Ireland ]] pipelink at the first time of mention even if the context does not absolutely demand it. That's IMOS for you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with a pipelink to an appropriate article, that is exactly what should be done. There is normally no need to explicitly say something like 'Waterford GAA' in an article. If you are referring to the long text you have above as your reflection it seems to keep on talking about Derry GAA. I see no need even to do that but if it avoids the trouble with that naming dispute it might be worth it for an easy life, I don't see any need to extend such messing around anywhere else. Dmcq (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
What need? The Derry need seems to have penetrated by now. But it's wider than that. A title like London Senior Football Championship almost abrogates to itself all senior football competitions in London. London is a big city. It's liekly that it has a few other football competitions. What would somebody looking for London Senior Cup if they happened upon London Senior Football Championship? Is it not more likely that "London GAA" would result in the error being less common? Also, as association football is far more common in London than GAA, it should have the benefit of the title without the disambiguator, don'y you think? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss real problems rather than made up ones. Dmcq (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that Dmcq should withdraw from this "debate" (trial ?) as he keeps making the same circular argument that is demonstrably not true. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Dmcq, what do you want now? Is this really a problem that keeps you up at night? Can we not just close this case down and move on, before thing turns really sour? The Banner talk 08:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The usual naming conventions are in WP:TITLE and there are more precise naming conventions about sports in WP:Naming conventions (sports) but that simply is about the association itself rather than a league. Basically we should use the common name as described in WP:COMMONNAME rather than making up problems. Full disambiguation in titles is not required though we should as it says be precise enough to say what the topic is. We do not have to start inventing problems. The questions that should have been asked at the beginning before doing these moves is what is the common name for these championships? Does it identify the topic to people familiar with the topic? One could also argue for consistency in cases like this but I believe the GAA is consistenly not mentioned in that context. One can also ask at WP:SPORTS about this but it is pretty clear that other sports championships are not identified this way either. For instance we have in Britain that Laurel Lodged was worried about we have the Premier league, Football League Championship, and Southern Football League for instance. The basic thing to do in Wikipedia is to report on what is out there, and not to change things because of imagined problems. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You opinion is quite interesting but also quite off the mark. Looking at the namechange of the Clare Junior Hurling Championship I can not help to notice that this is not organizsed by Clare (commonly taken as the governmental County Council) but by Clare GAA. So, nothing wrong with that move... The Banner talk 11:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged should know better than to just go ahead and make edits like this en masse considering the recent problem with Brocach and his campaign on Gaelic articles to do with categories in regards to County Londonderry. Laurel seen the reaction of BrownHairedGirl and others to it and should of known to open up a discussion on it first. Mabuska (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me split it into two questions:
1) Were the title changes wrong?
2) Is the procedure followed wrong?
When the answer on question 1 is "no", get over it and move on. When "yes", start a new discussion about the content of the name changes without the threat of a topic ban and dealing with content matters alone.
When the answer on question 2 is "no", get over it and move on. When the answer is "yes", let us talke about the procedure.
The Banner talk 16:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe the answers are: Yes, yes, I wasn't discussing a topic ban but if he has been causing widespread problems then that is the usual procedure, I have just talked about the procedure above. Sports topics don't engage me terribly and I wish most of them weren't on Wikipedia as they fail notability as having no proper citations but since the matter has been brought up here I also find messing around unnecessarily and causing trouble for no good reason is a quick road to the door if people persist in doing it. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I know it was not you adding the request for a topic ban, that was done by the original poster. But adding such a threat straight at the opening of a discussion, is quite unhandy (to put it mildly). The Banner talk 11:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Battles involving Gaelic Irish tribes

This is a very badly named category. May I have some help in removing 'tribes', and renameing it? Fergananim (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Connachta, Uí Néill and Eóganachta‎ are referred to in their respective articles as "dynasties". That's probably the word you're looking for.
Incidentally, why is Battles involving the Uí Néill also a sub-cat of Battles involving the Connachta? Looks like a slip of the typing finger to me. Scolaire (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Surely it is "performer by performance" over-categorization? We wouldn't create a Category:This Is Your Life subjects? No tribes/clans/dynasties, no battles.86.42.223.143 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Derry City F.C. FAR

I have nominated Derry City F.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Faculty by university in Ireland

Category:Faculty by university in Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merger to Category:Academics by university in Ireland. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:National University of Ireland faculty

Category:National University of Ireland faculty and 5 other similar categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

River Lee, Ireland

Does anyone want to look at Talk:River Lee (Ireland) for a move proposal? It relates in some ways to the River Lea. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 14:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re domain names at Talk:Northern Ireland

A discussion is taking place at the above page relating to what domain name or domain names whould be listed for Northern Ireland (if any). I am a participant in the discussion so do not wish to be seen to be canvassing here so I simply encourage more Editors to get involved at Talk: Northern Ireland. For balance I am also making this post on the UK project page. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Last monarch, Edward or George?

This seems a good place to come for advice about Edward VIII as last monarch[8]: Given the reasoning at the Talk page for Monarchy_of_Ireland is there good learning and sources for or against letting George VI be taken from the list of the last of the monarchs of the Irish Free State? --Qexigator (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically George 5, Edward 8 and George 6 were indeed Monarch of the Irish Free State. But as far as I know, their influence on the Irish Governement was plain zero. In my opinion, it might be a good idea to change the heading "Monarchs of the Irish Free State" to "Pro Forma Monarchs of the Irish Free State". The Banner talk 13:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Change of heading seems a good idea. Perhaps it should be "Treaty Monarchs". The arrangement, whatever it was at any point in time, existed in practice and by mutual consent witnessed by formal treaty and otherwise between the parties representing the sovereignty of the IFS and the UK, and the arrangement was in the interest of both parties, both internally for home affairs and externally for foreign affairs. Is there anything sourceable to support George VI as "technically...Monarch of the Irish Free State"? Qexigator (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The article on Domhnall Ua Buachalla is quite good on this aspect. Unfortunately, it offers no citations. Given the nature of the instructions however, it's unlikely that de Valera would have committed them to writing. While they're probably true, they're proably unproveable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Domhnall Ua Buachalla mentioned by Laurel Lodged gives some interesting detail which backs up Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. The main contributors to both articles seem to be well-versed in the topic. "Treaty Monarchs" would be consistent with the following extracts from the latter:

..."The exact constitutional status of the state during this period has been a matter of scholarly and political dispute. ....one practical implication of explicitly declaring the state to be a republic in 1949 was that it automatically terminated the state's membership of the then British Commonwealth, in accordance with the rules in operation at the time. ....from 1936 until 1949 the role of the King in the Irish state was invisible to most Irish people. The monarch never visited the state during that period and, due to the abolition of the office of Governor-General, had no official representative there. The president, on the other hand, played a key role in important public ceremonies. Due to his role in foreign relations, however, almost every state with which the state had diplomatic relations concluded that it was the King who was head of state.... in December 1948...the Republic of Ireland Bill he [the Taoiseach John A. Costello] was introducing would make the President of Ireland the Irish head of state, the man who "ought to have been" but wasn't ....The King's title during this period was never simply "King of Ireland". "

I am proposing to make the change of heading to Treaty Monarchs, in Monarchy of Ireland, but comment from others would be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

--but now see Talk:Monarchy of Ireland[[9]] Qexigator (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
--and now see changes at Monarchy of Ireland, Monarchs of the Itish Free State. Qexigator (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Crown in Ireland Act 1542 was repealed in 2007, allowing for any sort of head of state between 1922 and 2007.86.42.199.13 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If Irish statute sources are to be believed the repeal was in 1962,[10] so its inclusion in the 2007 schedule is anomalous, and certainly was not explained at the BBC source. Qexigator (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The 1937 didn't specify that the state was a republic, just that there was a self-governing state run by those elected by the Irish people. So the 1948 Act was needed. There's a logic in "Treaty Monarchs" but that's like saying "I don't like reading that now so let's redefine it". So on paper it was George 6.86.42.221.77 (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Representative peer FAR

I have nominated Representative peer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Mabuska has made what looks like close to 200 edits on GAA-related pages, changing "Derry" to "Derry GAA", starting with a page move that, as far as I can see, was never discussed. Many of these edits change the [[List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry]] link to the non-existent [[List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA]]. Many have the edit summary "amending to avoid IMoS violation". IMoS violation? Where is that coming from? I seem to recall that somebody proposed a topic ban on another user for pulling a similar stunt not so long ago. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

See 6 headings higher for a discussion about it, sanctioning the actions by doing nothing. The Banner talk 20:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Sanctioning the action of RA in reverting the edits of the other user, you mean? Scolaire (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, the editwar is already there. To put it quite unpolite: dom gelul (you can look that up in Google Translate) The Banner talk 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No, thank you. I'm not studying to be unpolite. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
As you can expect, I support the moves because it clarifies a potential question about what county you are talking about. GAA counties are not always identical to government counties. And especially in Northern-Ireland, that can lead to explosive situations. Adding GAA to the county name, conform the actual names of the counties, defuses that effect. The Banner talk 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the moves per Banner rationale. Also, what can be meant by "non-existent" Derry GAA? The article Derry GAA states "The Derry County Board of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) (Irish: Cummann Lúthchleas Gael Coiste Contae Dhoire) or Derry GAA is one of the 32 county boards of the GAA in Ireland". So the GAA itslef does not use "Derry" on a standalone basis. It's only shorthand or vernacular expressions that might contract the name. It is also the case that there is a club within the Derry GAA county board that draws muchof its support from County Antrim. So the area under the administration of the Derry County Board is not and was not not co-extensive with the geographic area of County Londonderry. It is correct therefore to disambiguate the two entities and their differing spheres of operation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

RM Talk:London_GAA_Intermediate_Football_Championship that's relevant to this discussion Gnevin (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouble-stirring Scolaire with misleading comments? I only amended Derry GAA club articles with the addition of "GAA" after Brocach had inserted into them all most the "#Derry" part after his campaign to have "Country Derry" used dismissed by the community. Is there 200 such club articles relating to the Derry GAA? The link was not a bad one as I had similarily changed the actual article section-links so that it wasn't a broken link. Brocah then reverted all of them all based on the excuse that stating "Derry GAA" for clarification wasn't neccesary despite the potential IMoS issue.

Care to apologise for your misleading comments when all I did was try to sort out a potential IMoS problem which Brocach was inserting into articles after his previous campaigns had failed??? No mention of his actions? Nothing strange there. Mabuska (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And what potential IMoS violation? Are you blind? Whilst Brocach's insertion into the IMoS makes sense in the text of articles, i don't agree that it should apply to article links, especially when he has been on a campaign of trying to get the implication of "County Derry" through the back-door for the past 3 months or more. Mabuska (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The template name move was hardly controversial either as at present after Brocach's typical reverting, it is an IMoS violation. Mabuska (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Must also point out Scolaire that it didn't start with a page move. Anyone who looks at my contributions will clearly see the page move occurred in the middle of my GAA edits. Oh the misleading. Mabuska (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I also count around 98 edits not 200. Stirring the pot? Mabuska (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You wait a fortnight for a post from Mabuska and then six come along together! Bottom line: no, I don't care to apologise for anything. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Irish Provinces

There is a particular editor with certain political leanings that has recently begun uneccessarily adding a reference next to the Irish names of the 4 provinces of Ireland, along with a foonote. It is completely unneccessary and unwarranted especially since the editor in question IMO is implying that the names of the provinces require citations? Maybe I am just over-reacting, anyway I did not undo the edits as I have no desire to be dragged into an edit war with this editor. ÓCorcráin (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what you mean. Could you provide a link? — Jon C.ॐ 09:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It would help if you could provide a link to the articles affected, and preferably a diff to the edits you are referring to. We need to be able to find these articles/edits If we're going to help with them. Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Ulster [11]

States it is neccessary for a source for Irish name, nothing about Ulster Scots though.

2. Munster [12]

3. Leinster [13]

4. Connacht [14]

This is strange behaviour along with these edits, what exactly is the point of these? But as I said, I might be just overreacting. ÓCorcráin (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What I see is an edit from somebody who give more wait to the ISO Newsletter than you should expect or (in my opinion) is warranted. Looks superfluous to me but no reason for headaches. The Banner talk 11:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I've made a couple of aesthetic changes to the infobox section in question seeing as it didn't even mention what language the other names were. Mabuska (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please create the following page and redirect it for me

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_World_Heritage_Sites_in_Northern_Ireland (need this page created by someone with admin rights)

  1. REDIRECT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_Heritage_Sites_in_Northern_Ireland


I am trying to create a full Northen Ireland portal like the english one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Culture_of_Northern_Ireland norttis (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but isn't that a bit ambitious for your first day on Wikipedia? Scolaire (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

gaelicsurvival.com web site is entirely in Japanese

Please note the surprisingly un-Gaelic contents of http://www.gaelicsurvival.com. See the uses of gaelicsurvival.com on Wikipedia. This website is linked from seven of our articles including Carlow GAA but is unlikely to be useful as a source of game results. The tag line for the external link is "Gaelic Survival - Player Profiles Every Inter County Hurler and Footballer, Fantasy GAA Game". Most likely the site used to work but has now lost its registration. Does anyone have an idea if the real site could be somewhere else? If not, I guess the links should be removed from those articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Naming of articles and categories notification - also affects IMoS Londonderry/Derry section

A discussion is underway in regards to the naming of GAA articles and categories - it can be found here.

Proposal 5 is an issue that relates to the Londonderry/Derry IMoS section that personally I wouldn't have included in this discussion as it focuses solely on the IMoS.`

Mabuska (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mabuska, proposal 5 (now renamed proposal 6) is only there because you asked for it to be included. Scolaire (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes and it affects the IMoS and so it should be made clear that such a sensitive proposal is amongst a set of other proposals as some editors may have strong feelings in regards to proprosal 6 whilst caring frig all about the other 5. Mabuska (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Possibly, but why say you personally wouldn't have included it in that discussion if it was you who asked for it to be included in that discussion? I never would have included it except that you made that specific request. Scolaire (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories for Hurling clubs in Ireland

Category:Hurling clubs in Northern Ireland by county and Category:Hurling clubs in the Republic of Ireland by county, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for merger to a new Category:Hurling clubs in Ireland. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

House of Prayer, Achill

Could we have some outside views on this article. I'm beginning to feel like a gatekeeper, which is not my intention. RashersTierney (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've often thought of trying to improve it, but really I think it's beyond redemption (if you'll pardon the expression). Have you thought about nominating it for deletion? Scolaire (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Irredeemable. Chop it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting phenomenon and have edited it to what might be a WP-worthy state. However I expect that my work will be swiftly attacked by a flock of flying monkeys. And well done Rashers for your patience. Brocach (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It is definitely noteworthy, how many cults do we have in Ireland? Shame on anybody who argues for deletion. I mean ffs, its got claims of: supernatural visions (a woman who claims hear the voice of God!), apparitions, prophesy, stigmata. Also it has clashes with the Roman Catholic Church, allegations of corruption and Garda investigation. Its a gem of an article, and any editor who would even suggest AfD, should hang their heads in shame. Well done to Rashers and Brocach for improving the article, I'm sure all like minded editors will help out in the future. Snappy (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The topic is certainly noteworthy, having been the subject of controversy and Rashers and Brocach have done excellent work on it. More editors supporting their hard work would help everyone out and bring up the quality of the article.Autarch (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all who expressed a view here and particularly eds who contributed at the article and TP. Much relieved not to be 'ploughing a lone furrow'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Archive_15&oldid=1083658410"