Jump to content

Talk:Ireland (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Poll: Ireland article titles

[edit]

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

[edit]

Surely Northern Ireland should have its own bullet point? The purpose of this page is to list the uses of the term "Ireland"; if it is simply to be a dictionary definition, it is redundant, as there is already one here. "Ireland" is frequently used to refer to Northern Ireland, and whether that usage is "correct" or not is largely irrelevant on a disambiguation page. I would also submit that a link to British Isles (terminology) might be useful here too. MartinRobinson 21:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that Northern Ireland should have its own bullet. I also propose that flag icons be added to the disambiguation, as per my suggestion in Talk:Ireland
Example:


Ireland may refer to:


Wiki01916 03:20, 9 October 2006 (GMT)
Flags are unnecessary for disambiguation pages and, in my opinion, frankly superfluous. And I do not think Northern Ireland requires a distinct bullet: we are disambiguating instances of Ireland (i.e., state and island, not necessarily listing everything with it in the title) -- Northern Ireland is discreet and not generally confused or taken to mean Ireland. See, for instance, America. (Cogito ergo sumo 20:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't, as, quite simply, no one uses `Ireland' to refer to the north alone. If you find evidence that they do, please change the article on Northern Ireland to read "Northern Ireland, also known as Ireland, is a part of..." and get consensus for that before adding it to this disambiguation page. I've also removed the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland for the same reason. I suspect Southern Ireland falls into a similar category.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's silly to use flags in the Ireland disambiguation article as the article it is about uses of the term Ireland. But I agree that Northern Ireland should be included in the Ireland disambiguation list as many people from Northern Ireland refer to themselves as Irish or being from Ireland, and have every right to do so, no less than the people from Southern Ireland.AlwynJPie (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

'Ireland' often refers to both polities collectively. They encompass more then just the island of Ireland and therefore deserve an additional entry:

Ireland usually refers to:

  • Ireland, an island situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe
  • Republic of Ireland, officially Ireland, a sovereign state occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland
  • Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, two polities that together occupy the island of Ireland and it's minor surrounding islands

There's no need for a Northern Ireland listing. We are disambiguating what the term 'Ireland' is used to refer to, not what is part of 'Ireland'.
Rob (talk | contribs) 00:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll of Republic of Ireland title change

[edit]

I've opened a straw poll on support for a change to the title of the Republic of Ireland article and related articles. --sony-youthtalk 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Ireland

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Ireland to Ireland (island), Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), and Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland. This was a complex proposal encompassing three distinct discussions. The detailed reasoning can be read at User talk:Tariqabjotu#My response -- Rockpocket 22:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Per Wikipedia naming policy and the disambiguation guideline, as well as following extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force, it is proposed that this page be moved to Ireland. This will enable these pages to accord with Wikipedia-wide policy as well as the opinion of most of the task force editors. waggers (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While this move can't take place unless Ireland is moved, there is a parallel proposal to move Ireland to Ireland (island). If that fails, other alternative locations can be established for the current Ireland article - that need not affect the establishment of consensus for a move here. waggers (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This should be discussed at Talk:Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of this discussion was provided on Talk:Ireland on 30th October by Angus so all editors there have had time to participate. --Snowded TALK 12:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is yet another request, not the same one as in October. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Talk:Ireland? Particularly [1] and [2], not to mention this? waggers (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support per Una Smith: "An ambiguous title such as Ireland should be a disambiguation page, because it is Ireland that will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation and the task of disambiguating them is made vastly more difficult if Ireland also has "correct" incoming links that refer to one topic by that name." -- Evertype·✆ 19:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's only common courtesy to inform them. Scolaire (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland, they have an interest in the island too, after all. Rockpocket 01:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it does then it will be contrary to consensus, policy and every Wiki-norm and will be (1) a triumph for WP:BIAS and (2) a never-ending source of controversy and disruption. It is simply wrong. Utterly and totally wrong. Just how many times, in how many different places must we reach the same conclusion before somebody decides to be WP:BOLD and actually apply policy and consensus? (That someone is preferably not me, but most assuredly will be me if this filibustering does not cease). Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information: it most assuredly will not be you, Sarah, unless you plan an RfA anytime soon. You don't have the necessary buttons, I'm afraid. Rockpocket 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S*it! Sarah777 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the two-way action here. Wikipedia policy dictates that Ireland should be the disam page. Without anything better agreed on, we should follow policy. It will immediately sort out the countless thousands of "Ireland" links that go the Ireland island article, when the writer meant the Republic of Ireland, or the state. They will now point to a disam page, which will be fine. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Realistically speaking, this move discussion is dependent on the other one at Talk:Ireland#Proposed move to Ireland (island). Because you can't move this article over another one if there is no consensus for the other once to move elsewhere (especially as the other is much higher profile). I would suggest putting a moratorium on this until the other discussion is resolved. Rockpocket 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"moratorium" ? For how many more years? Sarah777 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reorder of opening parag

[edit]

I've re-ordered the opening parag. I think it's fairer now (and as things currently stand, certianly). Re the new parag heading: I favour using 'Irish nation' when referring to Ireland across history. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A nation is a social group, not a state. But, eitherway I protected this for one week. I wasn't confident that my warning above would not provoke shuffles, but that's that. If only the same editors would focus their efforts on facilitating a change in article title, they might make progress with their objections.
We're not piping Republic of Ireland, nor are we self-referencing Wikipedia. If anybody wants to change that they need to change policy first. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But 'accross history' Ireland wasn't always a state - do you see my point? I didn't think it got out of hand (just variations being tried), but there we go. Editors are getting very frustrated here - we are actually meant to edit! --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really very unhappy that my good faith edits were summarily reverted. Why did I bother? -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now protected and I cannot edit it. Bah. -- Evertype·✆ 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I favour using 'Irish nation' when referring to Ireland across history." Even before there was such a thing as the Irish nation? Or at times when more than just the Irish nation inhabited the island or states conterminous to it? Jesus, wept. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. I'm out of here. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't screw with my context - I'm refering to the collective use of eras within a sentence: I'm not suggesting 'Irish nation' as an 'umbrella' term. Back to signing in, eh? You've been a pain - but you will not stop play. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Matt, I'm going to reset my router and pick up another IP. Faith, Matt? No, I thought not.--89.101.221.42 (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sock. Bah. -- Evertype·✆ 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets calm down, eh chaps? --Narson ~ Talk • 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Narson, when did pointing things out become calming things down? We just need to archive the IP and move on. People are entitled to stand up to this IP. And you are right about WP:AGF, by the way IP - especially after what you just said about your naming router!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow the start. I think you mean when did pointing things out need calming down? Just that you seem to be getting very irrate with the IP. People are entitled to disagree with each other all the time Matt. Or agree with each other. It is pretty obvious plenty of editors do think there is something that needs commenting on or rectifying in the process. I realise it would be easier to discuss this without the IP as he does elicit responses such as yours, such as the ones he gets from Sarah. however, I do not think that simply because an IP is involved (And there is nothing wrong, currently, with being an IP) should cause discussion to cease. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ok - that's very 'sensible' and well well-lawyered - but we have the small issue of this page being unlocked fairly soon. This IP stopped the discussion on that (I have since moved the preceding sections to the bottom of the page). Don't you think it's important that we sort out what we want for the first few lines of this Ireland disam page? We were trying to do that before this page was chosen by the IP to troll (who has run everywhere anyway). And the biased 'summary' by him was simple trolling IMO - as has been some on his past edits. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lawyering? Ouch. Way to insult a guy ;) If I was lawyering I'd have your wallet, Matt. I don't think the page being unlocked is an issue. We don't have a deadline so we don't have to rush. I mean, obviously, I'd rather the issues surrounding the move were solved first but still. If the IP is going to behave as you think and there is a consensus, then he will be blocked for 3RR. Yes, he could just reset his router, but if an IP did that it would be obvious it was the same person and clearly an admin would impose a longer or indef block and his IP uses would be struck down as DUCKs. I realise you are excited about the fresh start Matt, and I wish you the best. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, can I say that Narson strikes me as uber-reasonable and open-minded (for an Admin). Personally I've found that requests for me to calm done are usually helpful as I can (unlike Matt!) get caught up in the flow. Let's give the Lawyer credit for leaving us some small change :) Sarah777 (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a lawyer so generous with his comments, that's for sure - especially on the Incidents page. Maybe he's a criminal lawyer? --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article now a disambiguation page

[edit]

Ireland now is a disambiguation page. Other articles affected in this renaming include:

--Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additions / changes:

I would remove the list of people named John Ireland; just link to that dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELF and WP:D

[edit]

I will revert the page to the status quo protect it if the above policies are breached regarding the Republic of Ireland. It's just not open to negotation as the policy is clear. It would be far more productive to get the appropriate Ireland (state) page move than to pretend it's already happened by piping and forking the content, would it not? No wonder the move never happens... --Jza84 |  Talk  22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Request and revised Intro

[edit]

Can we now expolre this?

Ireland commonly refers to:

This fully disambiguates now, IMO. Matt Lewis

————

Well, I'd have to say that I dislike the redundancy there. I prefer:

Ireland may refer commonly refers to:

The island has formerly been subject to a number of political arrangements (arranged in reverse chronological order):

  • Irish Free State, the name, from 1922 to 1937, of the state comprising 26 of Ireland's 32 counties
  • Irish Republic, the unilaterally declared independent state between 1919 and 1922, also sometimes wrongly used to describe the current state
  • Southern Ireland, the 26-county Irish state envisaged by the Government of Ireland Act 1920
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the name of the state that Ireland formed part of between 1801 and 1922
  • Kingdom of Ireland, the name given to the Irish state from 1541, by an act of the Parliament of Ireland
  • Lordship of Ireland, a nominally all-island Irish state created in the wake of the Norman invasion of the east coast of Ireland in 1169
  • Gaelic Ireland, the political order that existed in Ireland prior to the Norman invasion

Surely that is sufficient? Let's not play games about the dominant order (trying to put the State above the Island). Note the link for RoI goes to the 1948 Act article. I think I have addressed most of the concerns here. -- Evertype·✆ 17:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We found that state use (not geographical use) is the dominant use on Wikpedia. I don't see the point in using "may" any more - this is main page now for both articles. Putting the island first means duplicating the state in an awkward way. (PS you can see the 'sign' from the history list - I'm not playing games as I'm sure you know (I'm just very busy!)) --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it may be the "dominant" use on the Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that it is right to rank it this way. For one, it will annoy some people. Please let us be gracious. For another, the island is the superset and the two political units found within it. The way I arranged is not all that awkward; "Ireland (state), a sovereign state" does not seem more awkward to me than repeating Ireland (state) twice. You are right about "may". -- Evertype·✆ 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would "a sovereign and independent state" give more space? -- Evertype·✆ 17:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I almost put "a sovereign country" after Ireland (state) in my version, but I thought I'd keep it simple. Most countries don't have to desribe their independence in such a way - and I think it's pretty clear to everyone now. We mustn't forget that Ireland (state) will be covering the all-era Irish nation too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word "country" is problematic and ill-defined—particularly in light of the fact that "constituent country" is used for NI. "State" is unambiguous in the context. I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that your proposed reorganization is the right way to do it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Country" is the Wikpedia standard here - I don't see the ambiguity, to be honest. One reason for its general use is that sovereign states normally cover the country across history - not just as a modern state. Regarding the order, it depends which you think the use of 'Ireland' most commonly refers to - the island or the state. It is the common name (and offical name) for the Irish state, so surely that use has to be used more commonly. We can prove the country meaning is used more on Wikipedia anyway.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "surely" about it. I don't care that the pages have been moved, but I will fight against this notion of treating the state as the victor and heir of all Irish history. It's OTT POV. Nuclare (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I accept that you do not find "country" to be ambiguous, but it is, and as you can see from Nuclare's comment, your proposed formulation is controversial. (Nuclare, may I ask you to comment on mine? I have attempted to be neutral.) Re: "country" again, nothing prevents that sort of content from being in the Ireland (state) article, but this dab page isn't meant to do all of that. Regarding your suggestion that the state might be more common on the Wikipedia, I will say again, that even if we stipulate that, it does not mean that it should take first place on this page. The superset island should precede and its political subdivisions after at second level. Anything else is just too POV, or will be seen to be so. Please review my formulation. -- Evertype·✆ 18:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but using any dates is a bad idea, I think. How about these thankfully alphabetical offerings (C and D):

The first few lines (poll):

[edit]

A.

Ireland commonly refers to:


B.

Ireland commonly refers to:

C.

Ireland commonly refers to:


D.

Ireland commonly refers to:

E.

CURRENT:

Ireland may refer to:


F

Ireland commonly refers to:


Then I personally think we should go straight on to 'Place names' etc (which now won't be too hidden down the page). We can use a No-contents tag, perhaps. I think we need to start by paring this down per policy - that is how we got here, after all. I put the island at the top, per Evertype's suggestion - but IMO it scans a much better if the state is at the top (and is per common use too, though not alphabetical). I do think Ireland (state) should feature on its own too - if we must lose one, it should be the one under the island, along with NI. I would accept the graphic, per Nuclare's guideline find, but on reflection it would probably need to stay on the right. I think the term "sovereign state" can cover every feeling and every period(?). I'm straw-polling it (why not) so add another letter if you have another idea. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is called a "first few lines" poll - not that and the next section in one option! And don't ever change my letters (in my signed vote) again. The section below the first few lines is another issue! We can't poll an apple with oranges.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, you do not own the Wikipedia. I think your reversion was done in bad faith. I'm sorry to be at loggerheads with you. I don't like your taking my proposal off the table. -- Evertype·✆ 12:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do own my own edits! You have a single issue with the "Former political entities" section. You can't just append it as an extra option to a separate and running poll - that isn't logical at all. Just start a poll on it if you want: Shall we keep the "Former political entities" section? YES/NO. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New political map of Ireland graphic

[edit]

I've update the graphic

Political map of the island of Ireland showing Ireland and Northern Ireland

Can we get it in? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts. And that's an awful graphic in any case. -- Evertype·✆ 17:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please change your tone. It's genuinely distressing to me that you have started this with this attitude - people have been working for this change for a long time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intending to be aggressive here, honestly. Did I seem so? I have also been working for this change, as you know. My comment about the graphic is only that it should be completely replaced at some stage. -- Evertype·✆ 17:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it will. We need to put all the drama behind us now, and try and work positively together on these little details - a few things like this will need sorting. I'll be editing the main pages today, and updating the old graphics with this one (it's all I had time to do).--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Evertype, (on purely aesthetic grounds) that graphic is terrible. Please don't leave it on the article. Hohenloh 17:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the old one? Put a request in at wikimedia for a better one if you want - but we can't leave it saying "Republic of Ireland" can we? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the colours on the updated version of the old one [[3]? --HighKing (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new map is good. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely terrible and awful are not helpful adjectives. The yellow is very bright, very distinct from the green. Not a big fan of the khaki, but prefer it to the yellow.
Entirely green, with a yellow and a black line side by side, for the border? The darker green, with the second version's light green type for 'Ireland' and yellow for the north, as the black was too different from the green, would look nice IMO. The black and yellow stand out relative to each other, which makes a thin line stand out more against the background. I say green type for the south because I just liked that part of the new map; it can be carried off on the large open space of the south, where it would perhaps be in danger of being lost in the more cramped and visually cluttered north, with the border a lot closer. Anarchangel (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Island-of-Ireland3.PNG
Political map of the island of Ireland showing Ireland and Northern Ireland
I used yellow per discussion here regarding the image now at Countries of the United Kingdom. I am actually a graphic designer(!) so will certainly have a proper go in the future (if no one does sooner). I don't think a variation of green is suitable for NI at all, but I suppose the yellow could be made less bright - yellow was chosen as the most neutral, anyway. I wil certainly read the suggestions above at another time, I'm a bit busy now. People - re the cramped text, remember that it needs to be read as a thumb.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think no map belongs on this disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a point, seeing as how it dabs a load of other articles and people and things... Hadn't thought of that. --HighKing (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy removing it - I didn't think of that either. Reading Highking's comment in fact, it should certainly be removed!! The is a multi-article dab. It exists on the other pages anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are we afraid someone is going to mistake the map for a photo of Kathy Ireland? Why can't a map stay? Pretty please. :-((( Nuclare (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could go to the left - it makes it look less of a country-only page then. I'm not totally against it in theory. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be any objections to using this clicky map? - {{Ireland Labelled Map}}  Roadnote  ♫  15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The what's with the white boxes around the writing? Putting aesthetics aside, it is more informative. A moral "go ahead" from me. ;) --Cameron* 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would look better without the white boxes and a lighter coloured map, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be one! Any ideas?  Roadnote  ♫  16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Island-of-Ireland3.png
I don't really like the clicky map. I don't care for the white around the text and I don't think we need that functionality. I can change colours easily enough. Did you see my attempt at the Ireland (island) page? At least the text looks good. I don't mind the orange colour for NI but could change it if people thought it necessary. -- Evertype·✆ 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Map ideas

[edit]

various maps:

Island-of-Ireland.PNG
Island-of-Ireland2.PNG
File:Island-of-Ireland3.PNG
Island-of-Ireland3.PNG
File:Island-of-Ireland7.PNG
Island-of-Ireland6.PNG
File:Island-of-Ireland3.png
Island-of-Ireland3.png
File:Island-of-Ireland7.png
Island-of-Ireland7.png
Island-of-Ireland8.png
Island-of-Ireland9.png

Whatever the map style is, I don't like any traditional UK-based colours crossing in, and I for yellow to karki-ish yellow for NI - like we had. None of the UK country colours should be used, IMO, nor orange or green. If it's green at all, it needs to be a proper geographical-type map. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, I've asked for this to be discussed at Talk:Subdivisions_of_the_United_Kingdom. The point is that it would be nice if the colour they use for Northern Ireland didn't look bad in our Ireland maps, and since there has been an effort made to make the UK Subdivision colours look good, the discussion should take place over there for harmonization. Please let's discuss this over there. (Having said that I've added some more. The ones on the far right use the colours of old all-Ireland flags.) -- Evertype·✆ 11:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I was directed here from Talk:Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. If we are to link the map being discussed here with the one used in the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom article, I suggest that we really need to see this map with the Ireland (state) bit changed to grey to make sure it is not difficult to discriminate between Northern Ireland and Ireland (state) when used in the Subdivisions article. In a similar way, we perhaps also need to see the entire Subdivisions map to check that the colours used in that "work together" well. Until we can do that, I wouldn't personally want to comment, because I am aware of the psychological/perceptual issues that can muck things up here unless one is careful, but I will merely reinforce the point that if we are linking the two maps together, then it might be far better to make the evaluation of them linked as well, as I've just outlined.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't favour any cross-over at all - sorry if I mislead you here! What I was trying to say was "lets all talk here - its the best place"! The UK countries map over at Countries of the United Kingdom and subdivisions is a different matter all together in my eyes. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do favour cross-over. It's OK if you don't, but I'd like to explore this. -- Evertype·✆ 12:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm confused and should shut up, but I thought there was a suggestion that the colour used to depict Northern Ireland should be the same on the Ireland map and the map used on the Subdivisions article. If so, it is that (and only that fact) which links the two together if a change to the colour used for Northern Ireland is on the cards. Have I got this wrong?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done as you suggested and put grey images over at Talk:Subdivisions_of_the_United_Kingdom. -- Evertype·✆ 12:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Easiest to do this back over at Talk:Subdivisions_of_the_United_Kingdom, don't you think? There we can see the grey versions as well. -- Evertype·✆ 11:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as green is commonly associated with Ireland I think it would be quite good not to have Northern Ireland as a different colour. A different shade perhaps? Best, --Cameron* 12:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a diam page - not the island article. It will direct to two different countries - we can't have them the same shade.
Few people know about that article! This is the Ireland map which will go on this page. I can't believe we are running through all these colours again! We have masses of other work to do. The whole orange/blue thing - why are we going here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, we're going through this because it would be good to have colours harmonized. You may not be interested in harmonization, but I am, so please go and do your other work if you don't want to deal with this and don't care about the colours. OK? -- Evertype·✆ 12:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are interested in harmony?!! You are playing right into certain people's hands with this, can't you see it? THE COLOURS WE HAVE ARE FINE - IT ISN'T AN ISSUE!!!! The map of the UK will NOT be colouring Ireland green - it will remain grey like France, I promise you: Ireland is not in the UK! I do not apologise for removing your orange NI variant from Ireland (island). And personally, I will be conducting my own Ireland discussion here - not at Subdivisions of the UK for crying out loud. You can do what you want.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood. I was not proposing to have Ireland green on the map of the UK. The coloured versions over at Subdivisions Talk are there ONLY for the ease of comparison. There is no suggestion that Ireland should be anything but grey on those UK maps. The object is to be able to see the colours in context, so that we can have the same colour for Northern Ireland on both sets of maps. Get it? -- Evertype·✆ 14:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former political entities

[edit]

In my opinion, the section "Former political entities" does not belong on this disambiguation page either, as all of them are related to one of the three topic articles Ireland (island), Ireland (state), and Northern Ireland. --Una Smith (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is useful to the end user. -- Evertype·✆ 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Una has a point though - why should Ireland be different to other counties? America etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't. This is a dab page - with specific policy, guidelines and manuals of style affecting it. Anything that does not belong on a dab pages needs to go.
The cold light of day is upon us, Evertype. Be careful what you wish for. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the standardisation - if it is good enough for America.....
We have the foundations laid correctly now; we will all be unhappy with aspects of the structure but the building should remain stable unless we dissolve into a Tower of Babel scenario, to mangle some metaphors. Sarah777 (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I propose this for the top pf this page, before any section break:

Ireland commonly refers to:

The island has formerly been subject to a number of political arrangements (arranged in reverse chronological order):

  • Irish Free State, the name, from 1922 to 1937, of the state comprising 26 of Ireland's 32 counties
  • Irish Republic, the unilaterally declared independent state between 1919 and 1922, also sometimes wrongly used to describe the current state
  • Southern Ireland, the 26-county Irish state envisaged by the Government of Ireland Act 1920
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the name of the state that Ireland formed part of between 1801 and 1922
  • Kingdom of Ireland, the name given to the Irish state from 1541, by an act of the Parliament of Ireland
  • Lordship of Ireland, a nominally all-island Irish state created in the wake of the Norman invasion of the east coast of Ireland in 1169
  • Gaelic Ireland, the political order that existed in Ireland prior to the Norman invasion

All those links (except the new one to the Republic of Ireland Act) were on the dab page previously. What's the problem? -- Evertype·✆ 12:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely why would "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and "Ireland" need to be disambiguated??
This is a disambigion page. It is for listing terms that need to be disambiguated. Terms such as "Ireland", meaning the the island, and "Ireland", meaning the state. Other words or word phrases, such as "Hey-diddle-diddle" or anything else you may think of, that do not need to be disambiguated as different meanings of the word "Ireland" do not belong on this page. That goes for "Irish Republic", "Northern Ireland" and every other word or word phrase that is not "Ireland".
It's that simple. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why this disambiguation page cannot also have some portal function, and the fact is that when it was named Ireland (disambiguation) it had the same content anyway. I think your complaint now is a bit disingenuous. In any case, given the current content, I propose that it be re-arranged as above. -- Evertype·✆ 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Evertype. However...what's with the link to ROI? That's two links to Ireland (state) in one sentence! --Cameron* 12:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That one is piped to the Republic of Ireland Act article, which specifies the official "description" of the state. That's why I used the formulation "also described as the Republic of Ireland" -- Evertype·✆ 12:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for edits

[edit]

I think a series of edits need to be made to this page quickly since this page has suddenly shifted form being the 467th in WP. It will now be getting far more attention than it had been (indeed it will be getting 200 times as much attention as it had been getting, see here).

The first thing that that a dab page it contains thing that should not be on it. First among these is that "Ireland" does not ever refer to "Northern Ireland" (although "Northern Ireland" should appear in the See also section IMHO). Neither would it refer to "Gaelic Ireland", "Lordship of Ireland", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", "Irish Free State", "Irish Republic", "Southern Ireland", "King of Ireland", "Éire" "Irish (disambiguation)" or "Empress of Ireland".

Per the manual of style for dab pages, we also need to remove the image.

Remember too that we also need to get a bot to change the 30,000 or so links that currently point the Ireland that need now to be changed to point to Ireland (island). --89.101.221.42 (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This disruptive 'bot' idea would be take us back to square one. The vast majority of those "Ireland"s mean the Irish nation (see this, etc) both contemporary and old - the idea was to point them to this Ireland disam page. Sending them back to Ireland-the-island would have made whole thing pointless. (and will create a huge revert war now too). --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not link permanently to dab pages. This is the most distrubing example yet that you did not actually know what the policy you were invoking stated. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the important thing is to make sure that people coming here know (and are able to know quickly and easily) the difference between Ireland (state) and Ireland (island), so that they can make an informed decision. The idea that you can make that clear without mentioning Northern Ireland seems highly dubious to me. The map, of course, helps in that, so it's sad if it can't stay. Nuclare (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse this is now a dab page, and we need to follow policy and guidelines on dab pages. Specifically, we disambiguate:
  • Terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. For example, the terms Oe, Ōe, OE and O.E. are disambiguated on a single page (Oe).
  • Corresponding singular, plural and possessive forms. For example, the terms Eagle Nest, Eagle's Nest and Eagle Nests all appear at Eagle's Nest.
  • Variant spellings. For example, Honor and Honour both appear at Honor (disambiguation).
  • Variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith.
  • Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article. For example, Cure also contains instances of The Cure.
The word-phrase "Northern Ireland" differs sufficiently from the word "Ireland" so as to not require disambiguation. This kind of thing is addressed specifically in the guidelines when it says: "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices."
Of course, in my humble opinion, there is a "primary topic" a play here, so: "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term ... then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." But, a decision was made and we have to live with it. That means that "Northern Ireland" gets the chop down to the "See also" section. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous! There is no reason to take Northern Ireland off this page. Don't try wikilawyering here; this page is both dab and useful portal. Come on, now. -- Evertype·✆ 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, wiki-lawyering. The portal is at Portal:Ireland. This is a dab page. Read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). --89.101.221.42 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows for flexibility. Why must you be so belligerent? -- Evertype·✆ 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although apparently no flexibility allowed in deciding these page locations--what with all those "we must!"s flying about in the recent 'debates.' :) In any event, Northern Ireland doesn't have to be either a link or a separate bullet point here, but I do think it should be mentioned in a description of what Ireland (island) is. On the issue of images, which the IP claims must be removed: This is what the policy he linked states: "Including images is discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles." That exception seems to fit this situation, imho. Nuclare (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good find - I'd be happy with it, but it should be on the left if anywhere, perhaps with the text wrapped around it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to see it to agree--I'm a visual learner, I guess. :) I like Evertype's green & orange w/black letters map. I suppose green/orange might be a bit too cliche, but from a purely aesthetic standpoint, I like the look of it (although for this purpose maybe it should just be labeled "Island of Ireland." Nuclare (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotect}} Change Stephen Ireland, an Irish footballer to Stephen Ireland, an Republic of Ireland Association footballer. As per the team's name and Football in Ireland Gnevin (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be "Stephen Ireland, a Republic of Ireland Association footballer"!  Roadnote  ♫  17:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done fixed Skier Dude (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case this dab discussion re-surfaces, or this article gets moved back to "Ireland" I think we should all be able to agree on including Northern Ireland in the top section and retaining the image. It's an obvious snowball keep. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: controversial multi-page move

[edit]

Summary by 89.101.221.42 (talk)

[edit]

The issue is a recurring one. Proponents wanted:

Several different polls were opened simultaneously on (old page names):

A related poll had been run exactly one month earlier at (old page name):

And one month before then again also at (old page name):

Participation at the Ireland page was widest and consensus was against the move. Participation on two (recent) polls at the Republic of Ireland page also had wide participation and fell heavily against the move (both were closed). Participation at the disambiguation and task force pages were limited, but consensus in those polls came down (weakly) in favour of the move.

On this occasion the closing admin was:

Initially, Tariqabjotu performed the move request in error - having only seen the request at the task force page. When this was brought to his attention, he posted a response on this talk page. His decision was to maintain the move against consensus as consensus had arrived at "an illogical conclusion" (which he linked to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Later, he would comment that he had not read the discussions because, "There's so much stuff to wade through...".

Issues believed to be at play:

(Some) issues at play during the discussion:

--89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION: What kind of 'summary' is this? The "propenents wanted.." section above is selective.. where are the non-forked 'Ireland' options that opened the WP:IDTF taskforce? (ie Ireland as either state or island, but not both and not part of a dual state situation with Republic of Ireland??) The IP has ignored all the many main issues, and all the problems that have got us here, too. Why are we letting this particular IP do this? I propose archiving this section, as it is clearly disrupting (and made to disrupt) the discussion and progress being made above it. He is spamming it all over Wikpedia too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the content discussion that was sidelined above this to the bottom of the page. This page will be unlocked soon, and it too important to ignore. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop with the refactoring of the page? It isn't helping, it just makes it f-ing confusing as things flit around the page. There is clearly distaste for the manner of the move Matt, you can't just sweep it away into an archive because you dislike the methods applied being questioned. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply moved the ongoing main-page discussion below this interjection - that approach is usually the advised way, and I'm not trying to hide anything. This disam page will be UN-LOCKED very soon people - we must sort out what we want for the opening lines (even if it is to agree with what we have), or it will simply get locked again. That is perfectly logical and reasonable, isn't it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Not an accurate summary; it is tainted with POV around the word "consensus". The IP is conflating !vote tallies with consensus. This move had to be made as the previous situation was in flagrant breach of policy.

Example:


Issues believed to be at play:

At play? What does that mean? This is the "throwing in the kitchen sink" technique beloved of some elements of the Wiki community (whether as part of a prosecution or for reasons of obfuscation). It is my belief that the multiple polls were encouraged by the obstructionists and filibusterers in order to prevent this necessary change. And now they want to involve even more people in even more places! Sarah777 (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple polls were opened simultaneously by the proponents of the move. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not simultaneously. My memory is that when it looked like moving RoI seemed likely to succeed at the original location it was demanded that the "wider community" be involved and it was in response to such demands that Admins like Waggers opened new polls. Sarah777 (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned that an IP, who are not supposed to even vote on these Ireland-related matters (I think) is now busy orchestrating more drama. I thought IPs couldn't initiate RfCs? Sarah777 (talk)
The polls are archived and linked from my statement above. The record does not tally with your "memory". (As regards your continued nonsense concerning IPs, please see Wikipedia:RFC for clarification.) --89.101.221.42 (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any relevant material at that link. Could you be more specific? Sarah777 (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

⬅ The closing Admin used the one discussion which handled the problem as a whole, and built on previous discussions and polls which were leading to the same conclusion. As far as I can see the multiple polls were being used to support the status quo not what is a logical change which does not use emotive language. IP 89.. is being selective in their posting above. In general most past votes have seen more people for Island (state) but not enough to force a change against a conservative support for older language. A review however is necessary by a third party to stabilise a position. There is no way the editors on the pages concerned will reach agreement ..--Snowded TALK 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The closing Admin used the one discussion which handled the problem as a whole ..." Being more than disingenuous here, Snowded. After all, the closing admin stated he did not see the other discussions until after he had made his decision. See his summary of events. See also where he remarked of the great disparity between consensus on the poll that received widest participation and the one he based his initial decision on, something he found "particularly surprising". So much for being "built on previous discussions and polls which were leading to the same conclusion".
I concur that an outside view on the process would be welcome. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue with it is that it was a consensus developed by a clique on a remote page and not on this page. It was an attempt by a few that, though not being intnded to, resulted in the effective disenfranchisement of the many and which sets a very dangerous wikiprecedent. Whether the /result/ was 'right' in peoples views is immaterial. I mean, to take this to a logical extreme, can I now claim consensus if a few editrs agree on my talk page to move this page to Intergalactic Space War #7? The issue at hand is that no attempt was made, or very little, to achieve consensus on at least one of the articles in question and so, to use a bit of hyperbole, violated the very principles of wiki. I agree with the result but the way the decision was reached is so inherently wrong that I cannot support it. I admire Sarah, GoodDay and Matt's work on this, but beg them to have the patience to do this properly so that the move is defensable. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Narson; what "clique" - care to name the members? Remote page!! This is the main "Ireland" talkpage. I contributed across the range of discussions and the only difference I see is that the influx of "new" editors that appeared elsewhere for some reason overlooked this page; perhaps they supported the consensus and abstained? Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Ireland (State) page. 2 days ago there is a notice. Then a move. No attempt to gain a consensus there. There was previously an attempt in september on the article to move which looks to me like it failed. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse IP 89... and Narsons views. The admin who made the move has now made an argument for move himself, meaning he is no longer neutral in the dispute. We need an outside, uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation and work as mediator without personally forming an opinion (or at least not voicing it!). --Cameron* 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure there was consensus amongst the 'remote page.' There was an initial poll done to test all three moves. That garnered some strong support, some strong opposition. In the full course, I think one would be hard pressed to call it consensus. While that poll was ongoing, there were other polls put forward. Some of the opposers of the initial 3 move poll didn't even vote in the subsequent polls. The only poll which seems to have been used by the Admin for the moves was one where the preferred option of many of the oppposers of the initial all three moves poll wasn't even allowed as an option, since it was articulated under the premise that Ireland has to be a disambiguation page. I think the isssue of whether there are indeed absolute "musts" in the matters of disambiguation pages is one that needs ruled on here because it was the essence of the poll that was used to show consensus on the Taskforce page. Nuclare (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a move of controversial articles is nothing short of a disaster for wikipedia. On a fundamental level these articles were moved without the admin looking at all the issues raised. Made in good faith, but a bad outcome. Djegan (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely DJ you'd agree that it is a move forward that it is now those opposing policy who have to establish a consensus to overturn the status quo? Sarah777 (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that this result was a complete abuse of administrative powers, especially as the closing admin ignored the largest discussion on the current island article. I will continue to seek consense to have the state article on Ireland, and not the disambiguation page. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 13:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • People should stop abusing an admin who acted in good faith. Other polls were opened but the primary one looked at the articles as a whole and all pages were notified. As it is this has finally brought the issue to a head with both extremes unhappy. Ireland is not the name for the state, ROI has been removed. Lets use this to get the subject out of the torrid debates on these pages on the last four years and get arbcom to look at the matter as a whole. It will never be resolved here. In the meantime using words like "abuse" is just plain wrong. I suggest that stops. --Snowded TALK 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that it was done in good faith, I think tariq has not helped himself by the way he has conducted himself. He made value judgements and then said he wasn't involved and further more used protect powers. His statement on his user talk page is also not the most eloquent manner of dealing with things. I would also dispute that 2 days notice is 'notification' when the thing has been an issue for years. Apart from a few die hards, I am sure everyone wants this issue buried, but the manner this was carried out in buries nothing. It was expediency at the harm of fair and due process. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've left these Irelands RM discussions (notice I haven't commented on the 3 articles-in-question). I've my personal reasons for doing so (see my User-page). GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am very concious that I do not want to stray from "comment on actions, not editor" here, but I am more than a little dismayed by the manner in which this change occurred. It seems to me that the admin who made these wide-ranging changes:
  • Did not give due consideration to the points raised in the main discussion (namely that the task force remit was to confirm a set of guidelines around "how to refer to the 2 Irelands within articles". And was NOT just about article names. As such, a move in the absence of a guideline change was premature)
  • Did not take enough time to familiarise himself/herself with the issues involved (Admin appears to have arrived on the taskforce project page - after several weeks of absence from the project - took a look at just ONE discussion (in a page with 5 or more open discussions), and acting based on inferred "consensus". Where no consensus existed.)
  • Did not give enough notice to the parties involved in the task force or the IWNB community before making the changes. (In fact, I can see no notice of intent or warning of any kind. The least I would have expected was a one liner that said: "OK, looks like CON to me, here's what I'm going to do...")
  • Did not seem to engage the editors who raised a concern about the move (instead choosing a block/protect/justify approach).
Beyond the issues involved in the manner in which the move itself occured, I have serious reservations about the result. The new naming scheme addresses one of the issues raised by the taskforce, but does not represent a complete solution in terms of COMMONNAME (parens suffix have no standing in common use), DAB (Ireland (state) is not a clear label), ease of use (every single derived link will need a pipe), etc.
Frankly this whole debacle (coupled with some other recent realisations) has given me pause for thought on whether I want to devote my time to this project any more. Put simply, it is now ever clear to me that, no matter how reasoned, reasonable, logical, personable, "diplomatic", or respectful I am in my approach to this project, ultimately all it takes is one vandalising anon, a few die-hard bullys, or one misguided admin to upset things. And that is very very dis-heartening to take. Guliolopez (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Guliolopez, admit your position here. There have been vandalising anons and both sides and die hard bullies on both sides throughout. The admin was not misguided, he just didn't agree with you. I have been equally frustrated by the use of consensus to prevent change and debate. This comments section just repeats the interminable debates over the last year or so. Both sides attempt to pretend that they are the neutral/aggrieved party when the harsh reality is that there are different groups in play. Both extreme groups, but even the centre fragments into sides. It needs a neutral point of view, a disengaged party to resolve. Hopefully the change will achieve this. If you read the admin's rationale your description above is unfair and using protection was the only way of preventing a reversion war. Please lets take this as an opportunity to get the issue out of the groups of editors who are too engaged with the subject. --Snowded TALK 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowed. Again, I'm more than a little put out by your assumption of "bad faith" on several levels here. Firstly, asking me to "state my position" suggests that I'm being deceitful and hiding something. I'm not. I clearly stated in my note above that I don't think "Ireland (state)" is an appropriate name for the country article. I did not (and have never) hidden this. The suggestion that I am somehow being deceitful and not stating my position in full is therefore both wrong and bothersome. Secondly, my comment on "anons and bullies" was actually related to OTHER TOPICS. As noted above, my statement of general frustration with the project was based on "other recent realisations" derived from OTHER EVENTS. And not just this one. I wasn't labelling ANYONE as a bully or a disruptive anon in this case. Rather I was referring to other recent events. While I realise that this may have been unclear, if - instead of assuming bad faith - you had simply requested clarification, I could have cleared that up. And finally, the suggestion that I'm attacking the admin "just because he disagreed with me" is also untrue. I was at pains to separate my issue with "the move" and "the result" above. (I don't want a response to this.) Guliolopez (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I have been equally frustrated by the use of consensus to prevent change and debate." Damn consensus. When will these people ever learn The Truth? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"and using protection was the only way of preventing a reversion war." I think it's the fact that the admin protected the pages from being moved which has caused the most uproar. By protecting them immediately, it makes him out to be taking the "this is what I think will fix it, and that's that" stance, rather than saying "this is how I feel the outcome is" but leaving it open to the community to decipher it. I think it is for this reason why there was an ANI created about this topic. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly think a group of editors who went off to form a group specifically to discuss things can accuse others of being 'too engaged with the subject'. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, what is it about this compromise that you can't live with? I don't understand it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, let me explain. My problem is /how/ the decision was made. Not /what/ the decision was. /How/ the decision was made is pretty flagrantly in breach of the basic principles of wikipedia and therefore no matter how correct the result it lacks the basic requirement of being just because procedure wasn't followed. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Narson, perhaps you should be more concerned that the title of the Ireland (state) article was "flagrantly in breach of the basic principles of wikipedia" than fretting that the resolution may have been less that perfect in your eyes? Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very amusing attempt at shifting the focus Sarah. There was a mistake on behalf of the movers. Rather than admit a mistake made in good faith, they instead now attempt to retroactivly justify it. As it is, there needs to be an acceptance that the way that move went on was fundementally wrong, that it won't happen again in future. If that means a revert to RoI and then we move it to Ireland (State), then so be that. While it may seem like process for the sake of process, in such controversial issues it is important that procedure is followed and we don't have quangos running around. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not unique or precedent setting. Years-in-Ireland were merged/deleted by the hundreds without due process and I got an indefinite block for contesting the decision. Admins openly conceded the process was all wrong (about five editors decided, excluding the major contributors). Despite this not one single Admin (including Rockpocket btw) who were watching/involved was the least bit motivated to revisit the process. Ignoring rules and procedures are is ingrained in Wiki. Nothing done here is going to impact on "that it won't happen again in future". Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly we just had a talk about this on IRC earlier, on how people always say things arn't precedent setting yet you see people use them as precedents. I am not familiar with the Years-in-Ireland debate, so I can't comment on it either way. However, it is totally immaterial to the mistakes made here. IAR is there for the exceptions, I do not see any reason to enact it here, infact I see more than anything a reason to stick to the rules and guidelines because otherwise everything is open to the kind of accusations bandied about regarding 'X Centric POV' and such. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin made a mistake after being mis-directed into closing a debate at the IDTF that was both superceded in time of initiation and number of opinions registered, by a requested move held at Ireland (island), formerly Ireland, which he correctly illustrates then produced an 'ilogical' result. On realising this, he should have simply reversed his changes, and attempted to re-asses the situation, consolidating the opinions registered at both venues (which did not as it happens involve exactly the same people, suggesting a lack of realisation of the different venues in play).

Instead, he has merely retroactively fitted a closure assessment of the later move discussion into his earlier judgement (which can technically happen, the later one having run for 5 days), by saying that by leaving the controversial move done despite the resulting anomoly is justified due to the length of time the whole issue has been argued over. This is not how controversial proposals are supposed to be assessed or actioned, and certainly does not lead to a situation where future 'squabbling' as he puts it can be rejected on the basis of the new status quo being a solid position. Controversial issues do not pass an imagined point in time after which the amount of arguing alone justifies unilateral action.

His specific analysis of the later contradictory move request was not detailed enough, and merely reads to me as an endoresement of the flawed but fervent opinions of Everyme and Matt, that Ireland realy has only two meanings and the term must be split into a two way db page ("Were it so obvious that "Ireland" meant the island (or, alternatively, the country),..."). He made no serious attempt to assess, analyse and summarise the arguments made in that move request for doing this, or against doing this, he merely seems to have accepted it as the only option.

Should this asessment now be forthcoming, I would specifically like to know, if he thinks that the need for disambiguation is just such a "no brainer" as he put it, why it has not been implemented for China or Korea for example? And unlike Matt and Everyme's replies, I would actually be expecting a sensible policy based reason, and not their characterisation of it as just being clear/obvious or justified because of irrelevant edit wars elsewhere. The fact that as can be seen above, Matt and Everyme are now having such difficulty coming to terms with what the actual disambiguation policy realy means for their new easy for the reader no brainer Ireland dab page here, shows that either they didn't understand, or later wanted to circumvent, the very policies they were citing to justify this change/.

I would support the conclusion of any admin made after a proper assesment based on the actual discussion (at least that can be confidently cited later in support of the suppression of squabbling), rather than one who after a genuine mistake justifies not undoing it because that would take a controversial issue "back to square one" and there's already been enough "squabbling". MickMacNee (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyme? There is a User:Everyme. It's not me though. And "flawed but fervent opinions" isn't so civil. Nor are Matt and I at loggerheads; we discuss with one another in a civil fashion. -- Evertype·✆ 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem? The decision was made, even if by anomalous or less-than-ideal means. What is it you want? All the articles reverted? More squabbling? -- Evertype·✆ 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This underhand and arbitrary move must be reversed immediately. There was no consensus for this move. There was a discussion on a proposal to move Ireland to Ireland(island), which appears to have been removed. Why? This episode is seriously undermining the integrity of Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The name change is a travesty and goes against every significant discussion that has been had on this topic. The "successful" proposal on the IMOS taskforce had nothing to do with IMOS and didn't even make one proposal to change it. Rather than agreeing a compromise proposal, the majority of task force editors merely resurrected a hard-line version of their own opinions. And then carried a head count to decide the matter. Democracy is no substitute for consensus. I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm just saying how I see it.
The task force was not the place to finalise moving the articles. This is something which should be done on the articles themselves. An agreed proposal from the task force should have been proposed on the RoI article before any changes were made. I'm not dead against moving Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), but it should come along with some clear proposals on how to refer to the Irish state elsewhere on wiki. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should go to arbitration. Discussing the matter is unlikely to resolve matters. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment comes after recent restoration of Ireland to being an article and not a dab page, but it has to be noted): As an addendum to my comments that the initiators of this proposal did not actually understand the policies they were invoking (which may not have been understood by the closing admin), see this comment from Matt Lewis on this page afer the move to a dab page, where he explains how the intention was to still have the majority of links to Ireland link to a two option island/state disambiguation page, as the 'home article' for the 'Irish Nation'. This is categorically not the normal practice on Wikipedia, we do not permanently link to disambiguation pages instead of articles. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents: the very fact that this discussion is going on is evidence that there is no "primary topic" for the name Ireland. If the island were the primary topic, there would be no people claiming that the country is, and vice versa. So, Ireland should be a disambiguation page. As for the country, "Republic of Ireland" is a description, not a name, so that title makes as much sense as "Island of Ireland" or "Planet Mercury" or "Force of lift" would for the Ireland (island), Mercury (planet), or Lift (force) articles. The title I'd like most is "Ireland (country)", but then, if people have problems with it because they believe that the word "country" could be misunderstood, I can live with "Ireland (state)", "Ireland (republic)" or whatever. -- Army1987 (t — c) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC) (But maybe, the status quo is OK, for consistence with Korea and China which are about the whole things...) -- Army1987 (t — c)[reply]

I saw this at RfC. It's not clear where I should add my comment. I think non-Irish/British people are more likely to have the Republic of Ireland in mind than any other meaning when they type in "Ireland". However, it's likely enough that people would have the island in mind (whether viewed as a country or not) that the most advisable solution is to have Ireland be a disambiguation page. Then there can be articles called Republic of Ireland and Ireland (island). In any case, having the article Ireland be about the island ignores the many people who would want to know about the republic. I'm not sure what to do with Ireland (country). It would certainly be confusing to have it point to the page on the island. Since this topic may be contentious, it should probably just redirect to the disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.245.45 (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland (country)

[edit]

How about the country traditionally called Ireland, which includes the island of Ireland plus its small surrounding islands? ðarkuncoll 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the island of Ireland, you mean? --Narson ~ Talk • 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the whole of the island of Ireland, plus its minor outlying islands - the country of Ireland, in other words (the current state of that name doesn't represent the whole country). ðarkuncoll 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I quite follow old chap. Was there a country that covered the whole of Ireland? Or are we harking back to the High Kings at this point? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there has been such a country for a very long time, and it's called Ireland. For example, Tory Island is part of the country of Ireland, even though it's a seperate island to the island of Ireland. ðarkuncoll 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Ireland (island) includes the little ones, I should think. -- Evertype·✆ 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-1801. TharkunColl, "country" is too loose a term to take seriously. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until his last, I thought TharkunColl might have been talking about this "Ireland", or possibly this "Ireland". But then he lost me a little. I now suspect that he's talking about this "Ireland" - when used to describe a concept beyond just the "it's a single rock in the sea" portion. IE: Maybe he means "Ireland (archipelago)". (But then again maybe he also means Ireland (island) when used to describe a cultural/historical whole that surpasses its use to describe either of the modern political states.) But then I'm not so sure. Guliolopez (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing so complex. Ireland is a country, just like England, Scotland and Wales. It currently happens to be divided between two sovereign states, but it's still a country. ðarkuncoll 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You confuse the heck out of me sometimes TC. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me simplify it; I have a lot of sympathy for Ireland as a "country". Problem is that Wiki has insisted that NI is also a "country". So that would make NI a country that is part of two other countries. Which so reduces the definition of "country" as to make it meaningless. Especially as the inhabitants of NI and the media almost universally refer to it as a 'Province' when they aren't making political statements. So calling Ireland-the-country (state) a country (which it clearly is) would fall foul of the logically challenged. WP:COMMONNAME has no place in the la-la land of Wiki-Ireland-related POV. Sarah777 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, the current set of Wiki-formulations results in the de-facto Wiki-assertion that NI is a country but Ireland is not. And they call attempts to modify that pov atrocity "pov pushing"!! Sarah777 (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland is a country but more importantly a sovereign state, isn't that right? Can't say I've ever understood NI being called a country, or Wales, but there you go. The world never did make sense. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NI isn't in any common sense meaning of the word; but this is Wiki. The "community" decided to call it one based on the fact that lots of written sources have so described it. The fact those refs are outnumbered 1,000 to 1 by sources not so describing it is simply ignored. Weight of editor numbers thingy. The balance of evidence would give Wales a vastly better claim. Sarah777 (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. NI isn't a country - it's a province. Based on the old province of Ulster, but not exactly coterminous with it. Ireland is a country, and this is true regardless of any current political arrangements. ðarkuncoll 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me see if I follow. The article Ireland (State), as it is currently called, covers the current state but also, logically, the previous states and such that have existed in Ireland before that point (Though I imagine many of those states will spin off into their own articles). The argument is that it should be called Ireland (Country) because it covers states that exist beyond the borders of the current state? Do I have it right? --Narson ~ Talk • 00:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article "Ireland (state)" only covers the state that was created (by an Act of the British parliament) in 1922. Previous states in Ireland have no connection with it. There should be a separate article that covers the actual country of Ireland, which has had many different states in it over the centuries. ðarkuncoll 00:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that approach, if I have it right, leave what for claritys sake I'll call the RoI without focused coverage? Or would the focus of the renamed article remain the current state? Or is this all semantics and not a practical issue at all? --Narson ~ Talk • 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come ON guys. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales are constituent countries of the UK, a state. That's different from "the countries of the world". This isn't rocket science. Sarah, I respect your work a lot but you're being weirdly shrill here. -- Evertype·✆ 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

[edit]

Having seen what Ireland (state) looks like, I can live with it. What I can't abide by is Ireland (island). From my point of view, Ireland should be a primary topic. When Evertype cries above that "this page is both dab and useful portal", I think he appreciates this too. I think also that everyone can appreciate that both Northern Ireland and Ireland (state) are just subsets (from every point of view: history, geography, culture, population) of Ireland (hence too maybe Evertypes horror that "Ireland" would not be disambiguated to "Northern Ireland"). This is indeed how the original Ireland article came about 8 years ago, then grew into what it is today.

What I propose is the following (from their current status):

  • Ireland (island) → Ireland
  • Ireland (state) → no change
  • Ireland → Ireland (disambiguation)

It was described above that the current set-up is a compromise that leave no-one happy. The above, I believe, is a compromise that would leave most people half-happy, I believe. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose this proposal. It is the word "Ireland" which is ambiguous. And characterizing me as "crying" is uncivil. -- Evertype·✆ 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I meant "cry" in the sense of "demand as a self-evident requirement or solution". Have faith, please, brother. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I don't see any reason why this disambiguation page cannot also have some minor portal function, and the fact is that when it was named Ireland (disambiguation) it had the same content anyway. In any case, given the current content, I propose that it be re-arranged as above. I'm not proposing to delete the information about former political entities on the island. I'm proposing to rearrange them. -- Evertype·✆ 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is not a disambiguation page, that would be a list of Ireland-related topics. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a proposal. It's brilliant, pure genius!! : ) --Cameron* 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. Unless I'm missing something the only time the dab would come into play is when someone typed in I-r-e-l-a-n-d- -(d-i-s-a-b-i-g-u-a-t-i-o-n-); anyone typing in "Ireland" would only get the secondary article about the rock. Ye must think I came down in the last shower! Sarah777 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"From my point of view, Ireland should be a primary topic". Maybe from your POV it should be - but it isn't! Most readers who type "Ireland" into search are looking for the state. Make

  • Ireland (island) → no change
  • Ireland (state) → Ireland
  • Ireland → Ireland (disambiguation)

- and we are on our way to a solution even better than the current solution. Sarah777 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that Sarah, if I was convinced of the assumption. TBH I'm one of those people who will just say Ireland to refer to the RoI and the island interchangibly. Though of course, one could argue it on the general assumption that people more often talk about states than they do geological formations. I'm just curious to hear the reasoning. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people do. That is why "Ireland" must be a dab page. Not least because most of the time when folk say "Ireland" they mean the State. So dab is already a compromise. Sarah777 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Maybe from your POV ..." Not "maybe", Sarah777. As I wrote, "From my point of view..." We all have one, Sarah777. You, me and everyone in between.
"Most readers who type "Ireland" into search are looking for the state." Is that unsubstantiated speculation or fact? At least, I gave some reasoning for why Ireland-the-island should be the primary article. "Most people do." Excellent, so you have figures? Wonderful. Strange though, because going by the polls taken here, here and here - and countless times before for the past 8 years - most people don't :-) --89.101.221.42 (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have polls on Wiki that suggest that "Most readers who type 'Ireland' into search are not looking for the state." Wow! Never recall seeing a poll of that nature. Links please. (The links above don't lead to any polls on the issue - not the first dud links you've posted today, I might add). As for "at least, I gave some reasoning for why Ireland-the-island should be the primary article." - n0, you provided arguments devoid of any reasoning.Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for anyone who wants a laugh: On the Irisih language Wikipedia Ireland the state is located at Poblacht na hÉireann (English = Republic of Ireland). Ireland the island is located at Éire (English = Ireland)! I hope you find this as hilarious as I did! ;) On a more serious note, I think we ought to revert the moves and then discuss, since that way the consensus is inclined... Best, --Cameron* 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may find something similar on the Hindu Wiki - because articles tend to follow the example of EN:Wiki. The best way forward is to leave the article titles as they are, consistent with policy, and try and establish a consensus to ignore policy if that is what you want to do. Sarah777 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, articles tend to follow the example of their national language (where applicable), if you know what I mean. But then I suppose you are right after all, English is more widespread in Ireland than Irish. --Cameron* 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go further. It is functionally dead. Mortally wounded in waves of physical and cultural genocide. Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tad emotive there Sarah. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sarah, that is exactly the situation I am campaigning for. Since the state is what I see most pipe links to Ireland refer to, then it is the primary topic and such should be on Ireland. I have no problem with the Ireland (island) article being what it is, but I do also feel that the state should become the primary article, and the dab page be moved into a "sub" page. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I don't disagree. But look at the war to make the blindingly obvious change to "dab"? A year ago I'd have been insisting on the state being Ireland (country) (or simply "Ireland"), by far my preferred choice, but what are the chances of getting consensus? In my estimation, and I'm not the sort to give up easily, zero. I will still vote for that solution, but too many people on both the Nationalist and Unionist/British (for different reasons) sides object to "country" being assigned to the state. Certainly I believe that country is the best fit to WP:COMMONNAME - but I can't get too worked-up about "state". Not much wrong with it - unlike RoI it is an unambiguous dab, not a pretend name. Sarah777 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, per your argument and below comments, what is the common name of America, or China? Neither is currently the state article. And unlike Ireland, there isn't even a geographic place name properly in confilct, it is actually The Americas or Asia. MickMacNee (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current set of Wiki-formulations results in the de-facto Wiki-assertion that NI is a country but that Ireland is not.

[edit]

I think this distills the POV problems that Wiki has imposed on Ireland-related articles. Arbitrarily following (and ignoring) a myriad set of rules as enforced by (mainly non or anti-Irish-nationalist editors) we have arrived at the situation where the sovereign state whose capital is Dublin cannot have its name applied to the article about it (though it is the WP:COMMONNAME), nor can the state be called a country; but the British controlled province of Northern Ireland is (and must) be called a country (contrary to WP:COMMONNAME). Frankly, sorting this bizarre manifestation of political POV is not something to be left in the hands of the editors and Admins who allowed it to develope. Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calm! Calm! Northern Ireland is called a "constituent country" of the UK. Who said Ireland isn't a "country"? And what's wrong with "state"? -- Evertype·✆ 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See UKCOUNTRYREFS - NI is not "British controlled", but simply "British" - will you get that into your head! The word 'province' is dated and demeaning to many, like 'principality' is for Wales. If you don't like the "state" situation regarding Ireland, then simply focus on that - DON'T make it politcal! It's not easy to get it right when the 'other side' are playing games as to what constitutes both a 'state' and a 'country'! (ie they insist the sate can only be 1922 onwards, and the country is the whole island - and they are not all 'Britiish' either). We have an article called 'Ireland (state)' now, I favour putting "country" (and "sovereign state" too if pushed) next to it whenever we can (and use 'country' per Wikipedia 'country' standards), but we must argue our case rationally. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the end result, you have to wonder why you supported it. This was a nothing proposal from the start. Meaningless. As came up above, where do we now mention Tory Island? Is it relevant to the island, or to the state? Or de we create a third Ireland article, the country? The answer of course like 90% of all other material, is and always was, it should be mentioned in Ireland. Now we have more redundancy, not less. All supposedly to make it simpler for the reader. And the supporters can't even decide what they meant by it (or have just actually never read the dab page policy). Mind blowing. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tory Island is part of Ireland, the Irish state, and the island archipelago too obviously - but how would it pose a problem? You are making up demons. If you did have your own preference (that is non-status quo), you have ruined your chances by being so beligerant, negative and hostile to any changes in the past. And that goes for a number of people. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My irony meter just exploded. MickMacNee (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lonely comment. When the dust settles and the mischief-makers back off, we will be fine. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they lack imagination these mischief makers! I can think of 20 puzzlers that would make this seem so convoluted and paradoxical straight away - the key point of all these musings is that, ironically (meter intact) they demonstrate just how badly we needed to start with an "Ireland" dab page. Imagine if the yankee editors had decided that "America" must primarily refer to the USA, or to the continent(s)? - total chaos. Now that we have a solid foundation all this is required is intelligence and good will to construct a stable edifice. Sarah777 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
America is the perfect example of what the people who supported this move were actually supporting, a simple double primary topic dab page, that is if they actually understood the policies they were invoking. You will have noted that per the policy, 'North America' and 'South America' are not listed as disambiguations of 'America'. But you are right about the number of puzzlers that can be found. That shows what a nonsense it was to claim this move was to clear up confusion for the reader. It has merely changed it, and worse, increased the potential for duplication between two new articles, not decrease it. These points were all explained in the latest poll, that the closing admin didn't even know existed, and then didn't bother to summarize before running away from his mistake, while no other admin looks likely to posess the will or the time to fix the mess. MickMacNee (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on article discussion

[edit]

Can we keep the actual article discussion at the bottom of the page? It is very important, and reverting it back to the top does no benefit to Wikipedia. The IP started a big old debate on the Moves in here - fine - join the debate, but don't force it to feature at the bottom of the page - not when we have a locked article and things to agree on. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is forcing it anywhere. It remains in the place it was begun, per the talk page policy. Prior discussion go before it, later ones after it. Whether you like that or not, or think that is important or not, is irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Talk Page 'policy' is that then? Article debate is supposed to be (and is allowed to be moved to) the bottom of the talk page. Otherwise if would be too easy for people like you, wouldn't it MickMacNee? I'm going to move it back, as its just too difficult to work on up there. You and the IP are responsible for stopping progress on Wikipedia. Whatever you think (or think you can wikilawyer), you have no right to do that. There is an Ireland taskforce, a MOS, a wikiproject and main aticles as well) - so don't push it. This article is locked and needs attention.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TALK. Your attempts to move the discussion around out of its original timeline are not only disruptve to newcomers to the page, and people revisiting to find old discussions, they obfuscate vital information on timelines of intial edits, timeline of the change to a dab page, and subsequent protections. If you revert again I will request a block at ANI for your blatant and obvious disruption, multiple people have told you your refactoring is not appropriate and confusing. There is zero justification for following a special convention just on this page just to suit you. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have no policy at all - I'm doing exactly the correct and recommended thing (admin have recommended it to me, too). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin request to restore the original timeline of this page

[edit]

Header struck by self, no longer needed MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have just repeated the same substantial and disruptive change to this page 4 times in the last 24 hours, going against WP:TALK, despite opposition from multiple editors and requests not to do so.

As I stated would happen should you continue, I have requested this be looked at, at ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Matt_Lewis_and_Talk:Ireland MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland (island) is now Ireland, this page is now Ireland (disambiguation)

[edit]

Just a chronological note. See this diff for the move. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I've changed from the map which has disputed text on it to the satellite picture which no one can have a problem with. -- Evertype·✆ 09:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - as per earlier comments, this article disambiguates from more than places - there's people here too, and I wouldn't advocate putting thumbnails of their faces here in the interests of fairness... --HighKing (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Even the satellite picture is "decorative" here, though I think the page is better with it than without. -- Evertype·✆ 17:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top matter

[edit]

I have made a series of changes. I added a link to the UK and clarified (to some degree) the RoI/Ireland issue. I re-ordered the former state-names in reverse chronological order, and I moved them above the Contents box. -- Evertype·✆ 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you writing a History of Ireland article on this dab page? Here are the rules: An entry must have one blue link. An entry must have the minimum amount of text to identify the target, nothing more. Each entry must be ambiguous in title to the term being disambiguated, and not merely contain the term in the title. You are not creating a dab page here, you are writing an incredible brief History of Ireland article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Can I ask you a question? Did you actually look at what was done? Because I didn't add a single link to the page. I only re-organized them in what I considered to be a user-friendly way. So I "created" nothing. -- Evertype·✆ 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You added two links here. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is your complaint? Do you consider the change from "United Kingdom" to "[[United Kingdom]]" to be significant? Does this change constitute "writing a History of Ireland article"? Yes, you are right, I did add one entirely new link, though it was to an existing dab line. I added "called Ireland in its 1937 [[Constitution of Ireland|Constitution]]". Do you consider that this changes constitutes "writing a History of Ireland article"? Is it something you object to? Because it seems to me to help deal, in a gentle way, with one of the bones of contention regarding the name of the state and the island. (I note that I piped it, which I shouldn't have, s I have corrected this.) Regarding the other links, as I said, I re-organized them. They were already there. And as for the rules, I see one which you refer to. It says "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader." Certainly "should" does not mean "must"; "in almost every case" allows for exceptions. -- Evertype·✆ 09:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed by your unshakeable faith in your own infallibility, Mr MacNee, but I'd like to point out that it isn't a "rule", it's an "editing guideline". Biscuittin (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above was written with tongue in cheek but there is a serious point behind it. It seems that you are conducting a crusade, Mr MacNee, rigidly to enforce Wikipedia's rules. This is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules which "documents an official English Wikipedia policy". Obviously, you will not accept this from me but perhaps, one day, somebody with more authority will say something similar. Biscuittin (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MacNee, see China (disambiguation), Korea (disambiguation), Congo (disambiguation) and Macedonia (disambiguation). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 16:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What am I looking for? MickMacNee (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They do not comply with the letter of WP:DAB: they include statements about history, even with links, when they help the reader figuring out what each article is about, and they include links to articles such as North Korea whose titles aren't, strictly speaking, ambiguous. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The letter here is a recommendation. Only. -- Evertype·✆ 00:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been clearer, that was my point. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland page name dispute

[edit]

Concerning the Ireland page names dispute, ArbCom has issued a final decision. It has four remedies. Per Remedy #1, please see Talk:Ireland#Content of this page --Una Smith (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

[edit]

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Ireland article names

[edit]

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

[edit]

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is unclear Suggestion

[edit]

As it currently stands, this article is unclear. It now states (after Rob's edits) that Ireland *usually* refers to Ireland the island, and gives a teeny nod in the direction of the various "Former political arrangements", with no clear statement (at all) that Ireland also refers to the state. Even as far back as 2006, the article acknowledged that the term could refer to one or the other (most commonly). Can we get back to a clearer article lede? One that states something along the lines of:

Ireland usually refers to one of the following:

This way, both common names for different entities are at the same level and given the same priority. -- HighKing 16:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually? According to who? And its written like NI is referred to as Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually" isn't a change HighKing is suggesting, that's just the existing wording. HighKing's suggested change is in what appears in the bullet points below.
I don't share your view that this makes it look like NI is sometimes referred to as Ireland; does anyone else read it that way? WaggersTALK 13:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't want to propose something radically different from the current article. "Usually" is a bit weaselly, but I've seen it in other articles with not problem. I think Murray might be referring to the existing article - my initial reading of it was that Northern Ireland might also be referred to as Ireland. I don't think my proposal makes the same mistake. -- HighKing 13:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No the "usually" comes in from Robs edits. From "commonly" previously. Agree that Highkings proposal makes it clear that NI isnt reffered to as Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since 'Ireland' often refers to both polities collectively and they encompass more then just the island of Ireland, how about:

Ireland usually refers to:

  • Ireland, an island situated off the north-western coast of continental Europe
  • Republic of Ireland, officially Ireland, a sovereign state occupying about five-sixths of the island of Ireland
  • Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, two polities that together occupy the island of Ireland and it's minor surrounding islands
Rob (talk | contribs) 20:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per its stronger clarity. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the last point is contentious, the United Kingdom (disambiguation), doesnt have EWS and NI mentioned. Add to the fact that the island article is about the island of Ireland and it's minor surrounding islands, you are double meaning. Murry1975 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rob, can you provide some sources for your 3rd point - where the word Ireland is used to refer collectively to both jurisdictions? -- HighKing 15:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ireland"

[edit]

The naming of the article at Ireland and the usage and topic of the pagename "Ireland" are up for discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Move "Ireland" to "Ireland (island)" or similar (June 2015) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ireland which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent 'repair'

[edit]

Hi, @JHunterJ: I have reverted your edit since it broke a perfectly good page whose content has been agreed on over many years - see the manifold discussions above, and on other related pages. Specifically, you removed the 'Polities located on Ireland' section, and with it the somewhat critical distinction between Éire and NI. To relegate NI to the 'See also' section smacks of political insensitivity at the very least. This a particularly emotive subject for a great many people. You also broke up a perfectly good summary of Irish history such as is not to be found anywhere else, although it does include two links with the word 'Irish' rather than 'Ireland'.

I know this is not a portal page, and that most dab pages can and should conform to a set of rules which you have admirably put into practice on many other pages. I suggest, nevertheless, that it is not one of those pages, but rather more like Congo (disambiguation) or China (disambiguation), as mentioned above. I have worked on a number of dab pages and enjoy weeding out non-essentials or putting entries in alpha or chrono order - I just don't think this particular page lends itself to a strict and unbending interpretation of 'the rules'. MinorProphet (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is encyclopedic information here (a non-article navigation page) that is not available on the encyclopedia, that information should be added to the encyclopedia in the article space. "Relegating" a partial-title match to the See also section "smacks" of MOS:DAB, not political insensitivity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming discussions

[edit]

Per WP:ARCA#Motion: Ireland article names - Required location of move discussions rescinded, discussions on Ireland article names no longer have to take place at WT:IECOLL. In future, they can take place on article talk pages. Scolaire (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)&oldid=1202997112"