Jump to content

Talk:Nations Cup (football)

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

Tournament name?

[edit]

Does anyone know what the exact name of this tournament will be? So far I've seen "4 Associations Tournament", "4 Association Tournament", "Four Associations Tournament", "Four Association Tournament" and "4 Associations Cup"! Someone set us straight! – PeeJay 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carling Nations Cup will be the official sponsored name, but we generally don't include sponsor names in article titles. Four Nations Football Tournament is what its referred to in the announcement. Rdd (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the bloody organisers can't make their stupid minds up! Damn them! – PeeJay 22:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Methinks Jmorrison230582 may have been rather precipitate in moving the article to [[Nations Cup (football)]] without any discussion. As a teacher, I have been almost pathetically pleased to see the correct use of an apostrophe in the earlier branding of 4 Associations' Cup/tournament: maybe an official logo will make clear whether it has survived the addition of a sponsor's name. The press releases yesterday seem to have been inconsistent in whether four has survived in the official, as opposed to the sponsored, title. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reference

[edit]

Could you explain exactly what is wrong with the adding of a reference? national team of the Republic of Ireland.. is misleading as it suggests that ROI is the name of the nation/country involved. That is not the case so the adding of a note/reference for anyone mislead, which appears down the bottom is a good edit. Can you explain your 2 reverts?CroatiaShoes (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a sporting sense, the nation represented by the Republic of Ireland national football team is the Republic of Ireland. The country of Ireland was previously represented by a different team, whose record has been adopted by the Northern Ireland national football team, so to refer to the Republic of Ireland national football team as representing "Ireland" is misleading. – PeeJay 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing the former country with the one that currently exists. The nation represented by the ROI is not called the ROI. Thats the name of the team but not the country. The country's name is Ireland. (ref) This confusion is the exact reason why the ref/note I'm inputting is useful. I am not trying to change it to Ireland as in a football sense that is confusing as FIFA have barred both teams from the island from using that name, but a ref indicating the correct name of the nation so as not to confuse people is certainly not misleading, in fact it's quite the opposite.CroatiaShoes (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, the modern country of Ireland is commonly known as the Republic of Ireland in many English-speaking countries, hence why there is no need to clarify that the term "Republic of Ireland" refers to Ireland. – PeeJay 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Do you have any facts to back that up? ROI was commonly used in the UK before the Good Friday Agreement and it's use is slowly decreasing after the UK gov recognized the official name (previously they hadn't) but it is not used internationally at all and never was. Proof:

Taken from ROI talk page:

These lists should indicate to what extent the term "Republic of" is a WP:common name outside these islands.

  • Republic of Ireland
    • ?
I'm sure you could find any number of official sources to back up your claim, but in everyday parlance, I'm sure a majority of people would still say "Republic of Ireland" when referring to Ireland. – PeeJay 15:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I most definitely know that is not the case. I think that is your POV. It is not fact. Without facts your opinion means very little on an encyclopedia.CroatiaShoes (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This particular branch of discussion is irrelevant. The question is: would the vast majority of people recognise "Republic of Ireland" as referring to the country of Ireland? The answer being "yes", you now have your explanation as to why the note is not necessary. – PeeJay 15:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that from? Thats POV. I have no doubt that people know which territory ROI refers to but the whole issue is the name. I am not changing the name but adding a ref as it is misleading as in it suggests ROI is the name of the nation. Would the vast majority of people look at Roi and assume it to be the name of the nation involved? Yes especially as you did it just above in your first reply in this talk page.CroatiaShoes (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did no such thing. I said "in a sporting sense", which is exactly right. I can think of no mainstream sport where the country known as Ireland is not referred to as the Republic of Ireland, except where the whole of the island is represented, as in rugby union or cricket. Furthermore, referring to Ireland as "the Republic of Ireland" is not incorrect. Ireland is a republic, and referring to it as such helps to distinguish it from Northern Ireland. – PeeJay 20:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I have no problem with that. I'm just putting in a note at the bottom of the page. Again you're wrong with another "fact" which is completely false and is your POV. There are actually no sports where the country is referred to as the ROI. Football is the only one. Check out the Olympics, golf, tennis, basketball etc. etc. I am not changing the name of the nation displayed here, just inserting a ref as undeniably ROI is not the name of the country/nation. What is your problem with the ref? You are debating some other point here.CroatiaShoes 20:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's not a ref. It's a footnote. It may use a ref tag, but since you're clarifying a point rather than citing a source, it's a footnote. Second of all, it's not my POV, it's what I believed was a fact. However, you have quite rightly proved me wrong and I'm happy to accept that. However, since the term "Republic of Ireland" is completely unambiguous and remains a common term used to refer to Ireland, the footnote is not necessary. – PeeJay 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you finally understand. I agree people understand what ROI refers to. Thats not the point of the "footnote". The point is that the way is phrased it implies that ROI is the name of nation/country as the correct names are used for the other nations. Do you not see that people may read it that ROI is the name of the nation? Where is it obvious that it's not the case? The footnote solves that.CroatiaShoes 20:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the article, ROI is the name of the nation. UEFA and the other associations involved in the 4 Associations Tournament refer to the country as the Republic of Ireland, and FIFA's name for the country is only a variation thereof. Of course, it doesn't help your case that the Wikipedia article about the country is located at Republic of Ireland. – PeeJay 20:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, I'm not changing the name of it! I am putting a footnote in to clarify that its not its name. There is no such thing as the context of the article, facts are facts. You are completely ignoring the whole point of readers will intrepret ROI as the name; which its not. Can you please acknowledge the point?CroatiaShoes 20:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to explain to me how "Republic of Ireland" is not the nation's name. If you can explain to me why people thinking that "Republic of Ireland" is the country's name is such a bad thing, you may do yourself justice. – PeeJay 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Republic of Ireland: Article 4 of the Irish constitution, which was adopted in 1937, provides that “the name of the state is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland”.[1] For all official purposes including in international treaties and in other legal documents, where the language of the documents is English, the Irish government uses the name Ireland. The same is true in respect of the name Éire for documents written in Irish. Institutions of the European Union follow the same practice. Since Irish became an official EU language on 1 January 2007, at EU meetings name plates for the state read as Éire - Ireland, just as the two official names are used on Irish passports.[2]

Since 1949 the Republic of Ireland Act has provided that the Republic of Ireland (Irish: Poblacht na hÉireann) is the official description for the state. The Act was intended primarily to declare that Ireland was a republic rather than a form of constitutional monarchy. It provided the state’s official description but it did not change its name. In 1989 the Irish Supreme Court rejected an extradition warrant that used the name Republic of Ireland. In the words of Mr. Justice Walsh, "If the courts of other countries seeking the assistance of this country are unwilling to give this State its constitutionally correct and internationally recognised name, then in my view, the warrants should be returned to such countries until they have been rectified."[3]

Any clearer that its not its name?

People being mislead is obviously a bad thing. What is good about people being mislead about a countrys name? Anyway its just a footnote, its hardly a controversial edit in the first place.CroatiaShoes 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion would probably be better suited to a wider forum of discussion, preferably WP:FOOTY and/or WP:IRELAND. I suggest you start discussions there, and link back to them from here. – PeeJay 21:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly? It's just a foot note for this page! I am not attempting to change ROI to Ireland across all football articles.

That is a completely different kettle of fish. Can you just think about the single foot note on this page? Do you not accept it?CroatiaShoes 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, you ask? Because I don't believe that I should make such a decision by myself. Such a decision could be construed as me "giving permission" for it to be included, which has the negative connotations of me believing that I "own" the article. I can assure you I have no such belief. A third party opinion would certainly be beneficial. – PeeJay 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a footnote? You must be kidding?
You're the own who disagreed. You intially didn't agree with it. The question is, has the discussion made you acknowledge the merit of its inclusion? This is not life changing. It's one footnote on a low level importance article. You reverted, you have the power to change your opinion. So do I, but nothing you have said makes me think differently. I think my points have made you think differently. If you now have no problem with it, revert your revert. If you still do, then we need to discuss more.
You're the one who reverted, you're the one I talk to. No one owns the article, but regarding this change its between me and you.CroatiaShoes 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion of the situation has not changed. I do not believe that a footnote is necessary for something so trivial. – PeeJay 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd rather have something that's incorrect and misleading then something that solves the problem and takes up absolutley no space while also not interuptting the flow of the sentence? You have no reasoning whatsoever at the moment for reverting and I am getting rather tired of you not giving any valid points. So far al you are saying is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can you either give some facts or wiki policy which explains why it shouldn't be there? If not, then the case is closed and its inclusion is warranted. You have blown this completely out of proporation for no apparent reason. You say its trivial, I say its fact.CroatiaShoes 22:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that, in your opinion, the terms "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" both refer to the same nation, so I do not understand how the use of the term "Republic of Ireland" in the article is misleading, and therefore I do not understand why you believe so fervently that this note is required. – PeeJay 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical question. You're reading the article, with little knowledge of the British Isles and its football teams. You read national team of the Republic of Ireland. What are you going to think the name of the country is?
The whole point of an encyclopedia is that is not misleading or inaccurate. Currently this page (and many other pages) are both. I could have put in Ireland as the name. It would be accurate, but as I'm looking out for the reader I acknowledge that it could be misleading in context. So I put in a footnote. It's hardly affects the article at all, yet you reverted it.
First of all you say it shouldn't be there because ROI is the name. I showed that you were wrong. Next you said ROI is used a lot for the sports teams of the country. Again I showed you were wrong. Now that you're saying you don't like for no actual reason. I don't need to speak for myself anymore. Wikipedia and fact will do that for me. The question is Why do you so fervently believe that this note is not required?I have given factual reasons for its inclusion. Now its your turn.CroatiaShoes 22:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm not saying I don't like it; I'm saying it's not necessary. Second, you are ignoring the fact that the two terms are perfectly synonymous and therefore the use of the term "Republic of Ireland" is not misleading. Address that fact at your leisure. I have made my reasons for not including the footnote abundantly clear and I would appreciate it if a third party would comment on this issue. – PeeJay 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Peejay there is no need for this "footnote".Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasons? Otherwise its a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATCroatiaShoes 22:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, given the sheer volume of the reasons I've already given, there aren't many more reasons that Lord Cornwallis could actually give without repeating one? By the way, you seem extremely keen to quote Wikipedia guidelines to us. For the record, I would like to direct you to WP:IAR. – PeeJay 23:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given one reason other than I don't think its necessary. Not good enough. +

- :::Thanks for the link to Ignore all rules. As you're continuing to stonewall I may be forced to give up on your opinion.CroatiaShoes 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above all, because your proposal is WP:POINT. Who is going to be confused by the use of "republic of Ireland"? On the other hand the use of Ireland which you have suggested in the past (under another username) is incredibly ambigous. As I suggested to you about a month ago when you were pushing this same line, under a different username, your argument would make more sense if the state's article itself was at Ireland rather than Republic of Ireland. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I am not suggesting some old proposal to use Ireland. This has nothing to do with article's titles! It is about fact! You are stonewalling and giving no good reason for the inclusion of a bloody footnote!
Who will be confused? Obviously you are! You think that ROI is a name of the country. It's not!CroatiaShoes 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time, no one would be confused by the use of the term "Republic of Ireland" to refer to Ireland. The only people who seem to have an objection to the use of said term is the Irish themselves! – PeeJay 23:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were confused by it a few hours ago!CroatiaShoes 23:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? You'll have to refresh my memory about that incident as I certainly don't recall using the term "Republic of Ireland" to refer to any other country than Ireland itself. – PeeJay 23:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the nation represented by the Republic of Ireland national football team is the Republic of Ireland.

No ROI is not a country, Ireland is.

However, the modern country of Ireland is commonly known as the Republic of Ireland in many English-speaking countries No its not, its sometimes incorrectly used in the UK.

I can think of no mainstream sport where the country known as Ireland is not referred to as the Republic of Ireland

Another completely made up statement. Another wrong one. All the statements who is not knowledgeable on the subject who doesn't hear the points that are being made. The whole point is about that it misleadingly suggests that ROI is a name, not what ROI refers to.CroatiaShoes 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you very kindly pointed out further above, "the Republic of Ireland" is the official description of the state. Therefore, I see no reason why the term "Republic of Ireland" cannot be used interchangeably with the term "Ireland", except where the term "Ireland" is being used to refer to the island as a whole. Case in point: if you asked Joe Public to point out on a map where "the Republic of Ireland" is, 99 times out of 100, Joe would point to Ireland. Is he wrong? No. The prosecution rests, your Honour. – PeeJay 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT SAYING THAT REPUBLIC OF IRELAND SHOULD NOT BE USED! I AM PUTTING IN A FOOTNOTE THAT SAYS THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND IS NOT THE NAME OF THE COUNTRY INVOLVED! THAT IS ALL! HAVE I GOT THROUGH TO YOU? YOU ARE ARGUING SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.CroatiaShoes 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing a different point. I am simply explaining to you that "Republic of Ireland" is a completely unambiguous term that people would not be confused by, and therefore there is no need for a footnote. We have had third party arbitration on this matter, and I therefore consider the matter closed. Any further attempts to negate this now-established consensus will be treated as vandalism. Thank you and goodnight. – PeeJay 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother arguing too much. User is a sock, and this is simply WP:Point. In another guise they tried and failed to have the Republic of Ireland moved to Ireland, and now routinely create new identies and try to change as many articles as possible, in defiance of logic or consensus. 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then you two in my opinion are socks of each other and I will not listen to you then.CroatiaShoes 23:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to wager that Lord Cornwallis has slightly more evidence of you being a sockpuppet than you do of either of us being one. You have lost the argument. Please give it up. – PeeJay 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

[edit]

The page is now protected for 3 days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

[edit]

Various socks, etc. are edit-warring on this article. Please restore references to Republic of Ireland. In the context of this article, accuracy and clarity are important, given that the subject covers Ireland as a whole and both Irish international teams. It is in the interests of the reader that he or she is not confused by references to "Ireland" which, in fact, refer to the Republic. Mooretwin (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definetly agree it should say Republic of Ireland in the intro and refer to the national team in the same manner at all times. The one proposed change we should discuss, which appears to have started Wikipiere off on one of his edit-warring sprees, is that in the table at the bottom is whether it should say Dublin, Ireland or Dublin, Republic of Ireland. I'm fairly open to changing it, but we should probably try and establish a consensus first.
The link is to Republic of Ireland. I see no reason to disguise that by using "Republic of Ireland|Ireland". The article is relevant to two separate footballing jurisdictions in Ireland (one of which is called "Republic of Ireland"), rather than to the "official names" of "states", and the relevance of the table is to show that the first tournament is due to be hosted by one of those football associations (Republic of Ireland). Even if the article weren't about football, since it is relevant to Ireland as a whole, it makes sense to avoid using "Ireland" anyway, when referring only to part of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with that. While I could sort of see see a case for putting Dublin, Ireland in a rugby article when the island of Ireland plays as a whole - when it is football and the tournament involes N.Ire and R.Ire playing seperately it is better to use Dublin, Republic of Ireland to make it clearer and more precise. I'd give it a short while to see if anyone (other than Wikipiere) wants to object, and then make the change. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If it were a rugby or cricket article, it should positively say "Dublin, Ireland" (and link to Ireland and not Republic of Ireland). But it's football. Mooretwin (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to the sockpuppet contributions if they were a genuine user I would suggest that they should be arguing there case over at the main Republic of Ireland article, as it is a sock their contributions should be treated as vandalism.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Mooretwin (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made the change.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Give me a nudge if you see this user again or if you require a semi-protection. I blocked the last account indefinately so you will probably see Wikipeire in a new guise sometime soon. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I Missing Something Here?

[edit]

Baring in mind that this competition does not involve all of the teams form the British Isles, which of these statements is the clearest:

  1. '...involving the national football teams of the British Isles'?
  2. '...involving some of the national football teams of the British Isles'?

The first statement heavily implies that all the national football teams of the British Isles will take part in the competition; the second phrase, however, makes it clear that not all of them will. Therefore, the second statement is clearly the best to include in the article. I cannot understand how anyone would think differently, but two editors have reverted this tiny change.

This is a completely uncontroversial change, as it adds two words to make a sentence clearer. Therefore, I do not see the relevance of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which I have been directed to by a reverter - there is no bold change. I am, however, quite happy to justify my two words on the talk page, as shown above. - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm the second editor to have objected to your change, but again you've restored it. Edit warring could get you blocked.
"some of" is grammatically redundant - grammatical redundancy should be eliminated per the manual of style (have a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises). --Jza84 |  Talk  17:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I am fully aware of the blocking rules in Wikipedia and have never, ever been blocked. Secondly, as an English teacher, I am fully aware of the rules of grammar. There is nothing redundant about the phrase 'some of': it changes the meaning of the sentence from implying that all the national teams of the British Isles will take part to making it clear that only some of them will. - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 Associations/Four Associations

[edit]

Concerning the title 4 Associations rather than Four Associations a quick google search shows that Four Associations is used by the FAW [1] the BBC [2] while 4 Associations is used by the FAI [3] and the SFA [4]. It makes me wonder if we current have it at the right name though there doesn't seem to be a consensus even amongst those taking part exactly how it should be written. Is there any evidence that "4 associations" is the common name? It's not a hugely urgent issue, but I was just wondering. Lord C (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. "4" seems to be the majority view based on what you say above. Is there a "Four Associations Tournament" page pointing to this one? Mooretwin (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

An anonymous editor is edit-warring in an attempt to replace the term "Republic of Ireland" with "Ireland". There are two reasons, however, that the latter term is appropriate:

  1. To avoid confusion, since "Ireland" is also the name of the island; and
  2. The name of the football jurisdiction in any case is Republic of Ireland.

In the interests of clarity and to avoid confusion and ambiguity, therefore, please leave the settled text alone. Mooretwin (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is your point of view. It is not fact. The name of the country is Ireland. Fact. To try and push some other name is wrong.213.202.173.226 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is long-standing consensus here to refer to the nation as the "Republic of Ireland", in order to differentiate it from Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland as a whole (as is the case in rugby union). This article has been stable for a fair while, so don't come in here stirring shit because you will lose. – PeeJay 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about winning or losing it is about fact and consensus. The consensus and policy declared at WP:IMOS is in direct contradiction to your opinion so it is policy that should be used. Just because it was stable doesn't mean it is right, mistakes can and have been mistakingly left for months! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.173.226 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing about opinions or points of view. Don't you think, perhaps, that the "policy" declared at WP:IMOS could be wrong? I mean, this very discussion is evidence of that fact. Anyway, the fact of the matter is that using "Ireland" instead of "Republic of Ireland" could be quite confusing when Northern Ireland is also being referred to in the same article, as "Ireland" could feasibly be used to refer to the Northern state, or even to the island as a whole. – PeeJay 17:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've actually just read through WP:IMOS and it says nothing about having to refer to the state as "Ireland". In fact, it says that "Republic of Ireland" and "Ireland" are equally acceptable. So why the hell are you bitching about this? – PeeJay 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Policy can't be wrong! If you think there's a mistake raise the point there at the manual of style page, not pushing your point of view here. Ireland could not refer to Northern Ireland. It could refer to the island but why would it? Anyway thats why the link is there, just in case there's potential confusion.
"Policy can't be wrong"?! Now you're talking out of your ass. Of course policy can be wrong, if it's formulated the wrong way. Anyway, you've not answered my point about WP:IMOS not contraindicating the use of "Republic of Ireland". – PeeJay 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to erase your post. The conflict confused me. You've not answered my point either, which I made first. You explain your reasons then I'll explain mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.173.226 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you'll find that I made the point about WP:IMOS not contraindicating... – blah, blah, blah – first. Anyway, "Ireland" could easily refer to Northern Ireland from a UK point of view. Also, it's not a question of why "Ireland" could refer to the island itself, only that it could. Now your turn. – PeeJay 17:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"from UK point of view". You've proven my point, you're not considering the international NPOV, is not the pov of country that should be considered here but the factually correct neutral point of view.213.202.173.226 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor is edit-warring in an attempt to replace the term "Republic of Ireland" with "Ireland". There are two reasons, however, that the latter term is appropriate:

  1. To avoid confusion, since "Ireland" is also the name of the island; and
  2. The name of the football jurisdiction in any case is Republic of Ireland.

In the interests of clarity and to avoid confusion and ambiguity, therefore, please leave the settled text alone. Mooretwin (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the football team who is hosting the tournament. It is the country. The country called Ireland. Where was the Olympics held? Beijing, China. Did people say it was being hosted by the Chinese Olympic team? No its all about the country and the country we are talking about is called Ireland. That is accepted and you denying that is wrong and bad for Wikipedia.213.202.173.226 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Actually, the FAI will be hosting the tournament. 2. The country may be called "Ireland", but so is the island, hence the need to disambiguate and use "Republic of Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

"Irish", "Northern Irish", "Scottish" and "Welsh" national teams is plain inaccurate. There are several players who could only be tenuously described as having each of those nationalities. It is more accurate to use the full names and to then be consistent to avoid the lame Ireland naming problems. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article 4 of the Irish Constition confirms that "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." 'Republic' is used to differentiate the country from the name of the island itself. But either way, this is a petty argument guys. GiantSnowman 00:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, especially as you have admitted that the facts say to use Ireland.194.125.117.215 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is relevant to the first sentence, which is talking about the representative teams of national associations. That sentence has to be clear which national teams it is referring to. The second usage then has to be consistent. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

194., I hope you agree with us that Wikipedia articles need to be consistent with each other. If we call a country X, we should call it X in all the cases. Otherwise we're only gonna create confusion. This is not the first time the name of Ireland has come up, and it probably won't be the last time. After long discussions, we as a community have decided to use the name Ireland for the island and the name Republic of Ireland for the country. It's fine to disagree with that, but we had to choose one way or the other, and we were gonna disappoint people no matter what. The football assocation represents the independent country, and not the entire island. That means that it represents the country we call Republic of Ireland, and that's why their article is located at Republic of Ireland national football team. Aecis·(away) talk 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually the article title is under Arbcom and is about to be changed removing the "Republic of" so this "we as a community" thing you claim is false. Besides I'm happy with jmorrison230582's compromise edit so far.194.125.117.215 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another attempt by the banned user Wikipéire to vent their frustration at the current naming of the article on the Republic of Ireland by using multiple sock-puppets to edit war on Ireland-related pages. Right from the off their behaviour is not in good faith. They claim that IMOS dictates this arrangement, then when this is pointed out to be incorrect they suggest that Arbcom is about to change it. This behaviour is consistent with the previous behaviour of Wikipiere's sockpuppets. It is an attempt to use this article as a stalking-horse for a mass change of Republic of Ireland to Ireland across wikipedia. Consulting the edit history of this article will show previous attempts to do so. I reassert what I said previously on this talk page.
If they were a genuine user I would suggest that they should be arguing there case over at the main Republic of Ireland article, as it is a sock their contributions should be treated as vandalism
On a seperate note in the table at the bottom I have come to see the country link after Dublin as slightly unessecary. 99% of the people coming here will know which country Dublin is in - and the fraction who do not can click on the link to find out. Putting Dublin by itself would be good enough. Lord C (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely: the distinction is unnecessary, and grist to the mill for the multiple edit wars already happening on this page. Kevin McE (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home Nations Championship

[edit]

This info is relevant and worth a mention but to say that the 4AT is "effectively a successor" to it is false and misleading. I'm removing it. I'll replace it with the facts, i.e. that there was a Home Nations Championship and that it is an entirely different competition. Fionnsci (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Mooretwin (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Native languages

[edit]

Is there a source showing that these names for the tournament are in use in those languages, or is it simply a case of having translated "Nations Cup" into Scots or the relevant Celtic language. If it is the latter, is that not OR? Kevin McE (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 days after leaving this query, during which time no attempt was made at justification of the translations as being in use, and after it became evident that a different title is in use at cy.wiki, I removed the translations. They have now been restored by the editor who originally posted them, with some changes, but still no evidence that these titles are in use, and still contradicting cy.wiki. Evidence is needed that these titles are in use, and not merely translations. Kevin McE (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still no evidence offered that these titles are in use: in the absence of that, I can only assume that it is OR, so deleting again. Kevin McE (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it seems like OR. Presumably there will be official translations when (and if) the tournament actually takes place. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany suggestion in the 1980s

[edit]

I have removed this content because I don't believe it is any way relevant to the new tournament. It may have been suggested by the Breton association but there is nothing to suggest that it was a serious proposal, given that Brittany is not a full international team. The genesis of the current tournament is the proposal by Lawrie Sanchez in 2006 and the background is the traditional British Home Championship. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is very relevant to claims for a "Celtic Nations Cup". I hope you appreciate that just because you may have never heard of it is not enough to rule it out. It's not a matter of "new tournament" or not since it's history in the first place anyway and it would be far too easy to put history in separate boxes. The claims have existed since the 80s and there were exchanges of correspondence and meetings between the Brittany association, which is not a sovereign one, and the FA of Wales (Alun Evans), the Scottish FA (Ernie Walker) and the FA of Ireland (Peadar O'Driscoll). The Brittany secretary (Fanch Gaume) is still in charge, the Brittany claim is still there and they have French FA clearance to play some friendly games, hence their recent record. Medias like "The Glasgow Herald", "France Football", "Ouest France" and "Don Balon" (among others) talked about the project at the time. The Scottish FA did not need the tournament at the time since it had opted out of the British Championships and preferred to go its way with England. The article in The Herald at the time was explicit about it. Just because it did not materialise did not mean the offer never existed. The position of the Football Association having changed, the SFA has now found the "Celtic way" of interest, twenty years later. It notably took a loss of political, sporting (no more World Cup and Euro finals) and economical powers to do so. It was an offer which would have been materialised had the SFA wanted it and the Bretons been a bit more advanced. You can see it was not only about a national manager "having an idea"… I shall come back on that, with clear cut references. It will also be on the French language page. Regards. Schlesiermann (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that one of the titles by which this new event has been known is the "Celtic Cup", I think reference to a previously proposed Celtic Cup is highly relevant. It needs to be clear that this is not the Breton plan re-animated, but equally, it is not a resurrection of the Home Nations, and that is considered relevant. However, given that the Breton initiative was never realised, and the brevity of the article, the length of the quote was probably disproportionate. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might deserve a sentence in the article. It really belongs in a "History/Origins section" which doesn't yet exist. Perhaps if the tournament becomes established as a regular feature it might somehow seem more relevant. I suspect that Sancez was probably unaware of the Breton proposal when he suggested the tournament. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say remove reference to this far-fetched and obscure suggestion, which could never have become reality as Britanny is not a member of UEFA. Mooretwin (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close tags please

[edit]

 Fixed I contributed a small update with regard to the tense of the article (initial match, Wales vs Republic of Ireland, has now taken place), however I forgot to close the reference tag. For some reason the article won't save now when I try to edit it. Can someone else maybe fix this for me? I also noticed there doesn't seem to be a template for the Northern Irish national side. Maybe someone could write one for the article too, as it looks a bit strange having "X national football team" for the other teams but "Association Football in" for Northern Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.130.116 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The wording of Article 4 has been criticised. Most recently, in its report, the Constitution Review Groupin 1996 stated that Article 4 was unnecessarily complicated and should be amended to read ”The name of the state is Ireland” with an equivalent change in the Irish text.
  2. ^ Ireland joined the EU (then EEC) in 1973 under a treaty drawn up in several languages including Irish and English. Since then, its two names have been official in the EU. Irish became an official working language of the European Union on 1 January 2007 and consequently both names are now used on nameplates. This did not change the name of Ireland in EU law. For further consideration of the practice applied by the European Union, see Clause 7.1.1 of the Inter Institutional Style Guide.
  3. ^ Casey, James, Constitutional Law in Ireland, ISBN 9781899738632, p. 31, in reference to the Ellis v O'Dea extradition case.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nations_Cup_(football)&oldid=1255587143"