Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive13

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Issues with population information

In the process of adding the new-ish {{Infobox Irish Place}} i have encountered problems with population numbers being inconstant between what is listed in some of the older infoboxes, what is listed in the article, what is listed on List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/Largest 100, and what is reported by the CSO, specifically using the population information found here. Problem is that the number rarely match up, some of the population numbers use just that if the city proper, other used the city proper and environs, other use a town/rural designation that even when combined does not match the either the city proper or proper and environs (and is a bit confusing with out having to explain what the difference is between the two. My thing is that we should decide on a standard data set and then use that data set as the basis of population figures within the republic, i would push for the data that is listed in the external link above, thoughts? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What may of happened is that I think that estimatess may have being initially released very early after the census and these are still around. Missunderstandings between city and city+environ is an ongoing issue, even among Irish wikipedians. But agreed that we need to draw the statistics from one source. I want to read up on this in the next day or so. Djegan 11:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if we take data from any source i would think the best place would be CSO, being that they are the ones charged with the census, and the compiling of staticits, the matter is the data set to be used, and what kind of def we are going to use. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the best source is Volume 1- Population Classified by Area - Entire Volume (PDF 643KB). Table 1 is best for cities and counties, whilst Table 12 gives an alphabetical list of towns and their populations (its worth noting this includes "towns" without a legal boundary, for towns Table 7 maybe even more useful as it gives a list of town populations in the legal boundary and suburb/environ areas). Also its worth noting Census 2006 occures on April 23rd, peliminary results available within three months, final results within two years. [1]. So this is an additional consideration. Djegan 23:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to really look over it but i gave it a quick glance and i have an idea how they compiled their stats, i think that the document might be the best source to use. As for the new census, i would say that we should hold off on make any decisions based on it being that we not sure exactly what data is going to be provided in the peliminary results. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok so i looked over the data, and though a bit about it and here is what i think. I think that the data set proposed by Djegan should be the one that is used until the CSO releases the new figures for the current census. Also the document should be lined in Geographic references, and we should consider adding a citation for these number going to that reference. By doing this the current usage of the town/rural designation would go, which i have no problem with being that other then the fact that it is confusing to the average person, also their is the issue of those number in the info box not adding up to the population number in the article. Also i think the population figures in the infbox should reflect the town proper and not the town proper and environs combined, for towns that have environs listed separately, though i will take under consideration adding the environs to the infobox, some adjusting will have to be made in the code. Also i think we should have a standard wording for population figures i was think something along the lies of these:

Town only:
According to the 2002 census Omeath had a population of 231 persons.
Town with environs:
According to the 2002 census Athlone had population of 7,354 persons with an additional 7,853 persons living in the environs surrounding the town.

Also if their is an new estimate in the mean time it should be mentioned after the census number, should be noted as an estimate, also should show the year in which it would apply to as well as an appropriate source, so that the estimate can be verified. Thoughts? Also if their questions on the break down with how the census defs are made, especially in relation to environs and official town borders, i would direct ppl to the source document p 163 (146 in pdf paging). --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally agreed, we should limit population figures to the town/city proper and have an additional field for environs (as this may reduce some of the constant insertion of such figures into articles). My only negative comment is that if peliminary estimates become available in three months (see above) then it is possible that the 2002 final figures will soon be edited out and replaced with 2006 peliminary figures, particularily by anonyomous editors - so should we hold off until then (and see what form they are released in) or push ahead? Djegan 09:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you have to rember those numbers are going to be prelims, so cant say for centain what exaclty is the information that will be provied, not that we nessicarly need comphrensive data for the artciles. So yeah i am not going to put forth a push to convert the pouplation figures to reflect the 2002 data with the 2006 data pending, Though i would say that if a change looks as is need in relation to pouplation figures in the mean time, we should use the 2002 data as the set. In the mean time though we can hash out the display issues, which seem to be agreed upon i am guessing, my thinkng now is how, or if, do we display environs in the infobox? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

An editor appears to have preempted us in the matter of displaying environs in the infobox. Djegan 19:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the new Irish place infobox you will see there are entries available for both the town and rural populations which will only show up on the article page if there is data entered. ww2censor 19:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well i have removed the change, besides the idea that we have yet to decide how it going to be displayed, the way it looked was just terrible and confusing. SO how should we display it, do we list the environs as a separate number or add it to the city proper total? Also what are we going to call the sections in the the infobox, i think it is obvious the one is going to be city or town proper, but what about environs, and the greater area? Here is what i think, this is how it would look in the infobox, so just kinda picture it:

Population (2002)

-Proper: (cant use city or town, as the box is applied in both city and towns)

-ow/Environs: (could be environs as well, but could be confusing depending on how the numbers is applied)

-Metro: (Could also be Metropolitan, Greater Area, or Urban Area but it need s to be one, of them, it would make it utterly useless, and difficult, to have it completely interchangeable).

The sections would be displayed or not depending on variables. Speaking of the town/rural, that is an old system grandfathered from the older template, it also one of the points of confusion, i plan on removing it and replacing it with a new way to coincide with the idea being discussed. Also a bit off topic but concerning the box, was considering adding a section for Parliament constituency, any thoughts? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say two fields (one for city/town proper) without any special label and additionally an environ field (for just the environ figure with the suggested label) which is optional (because Dublin has no explicit environ population in official tables - and Dublin Region and Greater Dublin Area are misleading figures at best). I would not bother about a third field for Metro as it would be a bit of a problem; for a start as you point out yourself the terms vary too much between cities to be applied in a table in a simple and meaningful way; additionally the terms are often ad-hoc (Metropolitan Cork for instance is not based in law and may only encourage such terms for other cities). Djegan 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok i'll go forward with that then and put in the needed changes into the template, then at least put a test on one page, i'll make not of it on the board. In consideration of environs, i was thinking, that the term is not going to be recognised by all so a def would be needed, i don't see this being included in the articles, but either an article discussing what an environ entails, or something? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

SO i put the changes in ad it had the effect that i thought it would, i am kinda so so about it. I applied the changes just to the example boxes at Template talk:Infobox Irish Place, the example would be under the city section for Galway, i used the suburbs figure for the environs, which raises the question if for the cities we want to put the suburbs in the cso data as the environs. I am guessing that is what you were thinking about how it is displayed, maybe w/o the - in front the environ figure. I also made a addition changes that will currently change the way the pop figures are displayed for villages that have town/rural data, that is also in the example, Ballina , this is more in the direction i wanted to move in with the set up, just replace town with proper, and rural with environs, it would drop the sub sections if only a town population was provided. So that's what ii am thinking. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what environ means exactly, I must research it. The current version of the infobox looks quite neat. Regarding cso data I recommend we stick clearly to official figures and terminology. Djegan 19:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In the appendex of the data set, Appendix 2, section (i), Towns with Legally Defined Boundaries:

Much of the census analysis is concerned with the overall size of population clusters and not simply with areas within legally defined boundaries. Consequently, where urban areas have extended beyond the legally defined town boundary, the Central Statistics Office draws up new boundaries defining the suburban areas of Cities/Boroughs and environs of other legal towns for census purposes.

Suburbs/environs are defined, in conformity with United Nations recommendations, as the continuation of a distinct population cluster outside its legally defined boundary in which no occupied dwelling is more than 200 metres distant from the nearest occupied dwelling. New suburbs or environs are defined only where there are at least twenty occupied dwellings outside the legal boundary within the new limit. In applying the 200-metre criterion, industrial, commercial and recreational buildings and facilities are not regarded as breaking the continuity of a built-up area.

Suburban areas for Dublin City and Cork City were defined for the first time at the 1951 Census. For the 1956 Census all towns with legally defined boundaries were examined in co-operation with the Local Authorities concerned and where necessary, suburban areas or environs were defined for them for census purposes. The suburban boundaries were reviewed for each subsequent census. A comprehensive review was carried out as part of the processing phase of the 2002 Census.

So basicaly an environ is the same thing as suburb, and that in the eyes of the cso, environs and suburbs are the same, the diffrence being that environ is with a City/Borough, and environs are for towns/villages, so i guess the data would be listed under the same, which i guess would br environ, based on the new usage. As for the look, i dont know, the environ data does not look right to me, the issue i have with the Galway example, is that the environs in th way it is listed looks like it is not a seperate pouplation figure, but a subtraction out of the total, in so that the 331 is part of the 65,832 total, where as in the usage for Ballina it looks as if it is to seperate pouplation figures which it is, i guess. But if we want to keep the current config i'll go with it. Also the Town/rural way i will be eventually phasing out in prefrence to the environ system. Umm also keep in mind that the template is also used for the North, so wee need to make changes with that in mind, i dont see that being an issue currently. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents on the population of Urban Centres.

Lads there are 2 population figures that make sense anywhere you go in the world:

1) The population within the political boundary of a city or town.

2) The population of the conurbation of that city or town: i.e. The pop. of 1) plus the population living in the *contiguous* urban sprawl outside the city or town that is clearly centred on that city or town. The 2) figure is known in Ireland as the 'city + suburbs' or the 'town + environs' figure.

1) is important for official use. 2) is important for giving the true extent of the urban area.

When an article focuses on a political district/town/city, then clearly 1) should be given. When a district/town/city is spoken of in general terms, however, I think that 2) should be used.

It is important to note that exact populations for 1) and 2) are released by the CSO in final census reports. (2) obviously requires some analysis of the raw data to decide what exactly is included in the suburbs/environs.)

Since city/town boundaries are arbitrary, in that they are political institutions subject to political manipulation, and therefore are not proper measures of a town or cities population (in the sense we mean when we answer the question, "How many people live in Cork?"), I think that 2) would be normal in articles *not* concerning politically bounded areas.

I am interested to see that Limerick is ranked 4th largest city, rather than third, on the Limerick article, despite Limerick being a more populous urban area by the measure of 2). However, I suppose since these articles appear to be more 'city council style' articles than city articles in the general sense 1) is maybe the proper measure. Still, in the grand scheme of things, it seems meaningless to rank our cities in terms of political boundary rather than conurbation. (Although I know the national media is guilty of it.)

Furthermore, the conurbation figure is the *only* one that is (roughly) internationally transferable for the purposes of population comparison.

It means nothing to me to say that Dublin in bigger than London: it is true in the political sense, but in the sense that almost everybody means, London is clearly bigger than Dublin. Incidentally, I have a lot of respect for this site: [2]. Conurbations, or agglomerations, as it terms them, are given for nearly any city of any significance in the world. merlante 21:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ireland on Extraordinary rendition map

Those interested in Irish involvement in extraordinary rendition due to the movement of CIA planes through Shannon please comment on the inclusion of said island on said map here at Image talk:ExtRenditionMap.gif. Blackcap (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts

These ideas relate to the notice board only and not to any specific articles. I have been think that we should consider creating a redirect for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ireland to here. Reason being is that the notice board has effectively served as a de-facto wikiproject for Ireland and related subjects, also it would lessen the chance of a disaffected user creating an project that would "compete" with the notice board. Also would increase the projection of the NB. Thoughts?

The other thing would be the news section on the front page. It seems to be getting a bit long. Would recommend that it would be archived, possibly on a monthly basis. If done on a monthly basis would recommend that the previous months news be archived mid-way threw the current month, as so that news posted at the end of the month would still be in the current section as it would more then likely be active. I also came across a template, similar to the to do, that would move it off the page to a similar page to free up space on the front page. Thoughts?

I have no problem with doing the work, will take some time, but figure i pass it by the NB before making any of these changes. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hearty agreement with your sentiments. On the topic of other pages competing with the NB, we already have that to an extent with WP:NIWNB. Because, in all fairness, that page more or less posts entirely things that could be posted here. What ends up happening is people just cross-post half of the messages, and the other half is segregated away from other users who might be interested. I honestly don't understand why that was created. Blackcap (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well thats something you'll have to addres to them, i cant answer for them. As for the ideas that i have proposed, since their have been no objections i am going to proceede over the weekened putting it all together. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well i am going to delay this for now, i am caught up in somce other things that i need to get doen, so i'll get around to making the changes when i can .--Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NIWNB

I've proposed the removal of the NI noticeboard, comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board#Questioning the validity of this NB. Blackcap (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed Sockpuppetry on Ireland-related articles

It has been discovered on WP:RFCU that Bluegold (talk · contribs), MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs), An-gabhar (talk · contribs), Bel air (talk · contribs), Raspitin (talk · contribs) , No More POV Please (talk · contribs), and River run (talk · contribs) are all socks. Bluegold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in sockpuppetry to further the wikipedian strength of his POV on Scottish and Irish related articles.. All except Bluegold have been permanently blocked, and Bluegold himself has been blocked for ~~48 hours~~ a week. Moreover, Sea horn (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock, but may be just, if Bluegold was telling the truth on the investigation page, Bluegold's work colleague trying to help him out. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Bluegold is not the sock, I'm the sock. Sorry Bluegold, your edits were good. ~~Name Reserved_3421~~ - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.71.68.11 (talk • contribs) .

Calgacus now accused of sockpuppetry by Bluegold

I have removed this wholly irrelevant section. If you want to get at it for some reason, see this diff. Please keep further posts on topic. Snoutwood (tóg) 05:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

thank yo. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My great honor and pleasure. Snoutwood (tóg) 05:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Vincent Salafia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Salafia has so far received only one comment from someone stating they are familiar with Irish matters. One or two more would be welcomed. -- RHaworth 00:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize to the regulars of this board that the Bluegold sockpuppetry dispute spilled over here. Sorry, Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No bother. :) Snoutwood (tóg) 16:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming of Republic of Ireland towns/villages

A large number of Republic of Ireland towns and villages (and other types of articles too) state that they are in Ireland, not Republic of Ireland in the opening paragraph. This is misleading as it creates the impression that Ireland is one country. Examples are:

but the list is pretty much endless. What's everyone's thoughts on this? It's like stating New York City is in North America rather than the United States. I feel the motives behind this are the same as when people were editing Northern Ireland articles to say Ireland rather than Northern Ireland. I may be stirring up a hornet's nest here but articles should be consistant. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While the official name of the country is the 'Republic of Ireland', in my experience, in common usage, the vast majority of people use 'Ireland' as the country name, and certainly without intending to somehow make territorial claims on Northern Ireland. Not an issue, as I see it. Bastun 11:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading the 'Name' section of Republic of Ireland would indicate that using 'Ireland' in these town descriptions is entirely correct. Bastun 11:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There might not be intent (although I'm sceptical) but the effect is that the seperation of NI and ROI is blurred. On Wikipedia Ireland refers to an island, while Republic of Ireland refers to a country. So town/village articles should refer to the country that they are part of, not which island they are located on. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I say its not a problem to make the switch as long as you dont make the claim in the edit summary that Ireland is not a country - like someone did recently. Technically "Ireland" is the official name, whilst "Republic of Ireland" is the official description of the state. Djegan 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. In fact I'm speechless. I am sorry if the name of my country offends some people but the name is Ireland. We have shortened it for ease of use. Perhaps we should say Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That would solve it easily. Frelke 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to tone down the sarcasm, please. He has a legitimate point, and we need to give legitimate answers, not mockery. Snoutwood (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is sarcastic about applying the same rule both sides of the border ? I think I am making a legitimate point. Why do we use the style TownorPlacename, Country/Island/State/Region? What is it meant to denote? Is it meant to be Country? Or Island ? Or State ? Or Region ? What does the Manual of Style suggest? I think the most apposite approach would be to Follow local conventions. Local convention is to use Northern Ireland and Ireland. Frelke 22:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, obviously !!! Frelke 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I just took your comment the wrong way, so my apologies. Snoutwood (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I see and understand the issue, it is a fuzzy spot, though i dont see a problem with just changing Ireland to point to Republic of Ireland, considering that the name of the arcile is explained within the first parargraph. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Would a comprimise be "is a town on the coast of [[County Cork]], [[Ireland|Republic of Ireland]]" then? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Don' you mean the other way around i.e. " ... is a town on the coast of [[County Cork]], [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]". That would give a link that, when clicked, would take the user to the RoI article, but would still maintain the appearance of the commonly used name for the country. Or am I reading you wrongly? Frelke 12:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that's what I meant to type! Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, lets make it a formal style proposal, then have a vote. If carried we can make an addition to Naming conventions#Specific issues. Do we wanna wait until Names of Ireland is settled first? Frelke 13:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would wait a few days yet, in case anyone else has any input. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, maybe let it float to sunday, then pur the proposal up on the mos. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) could be the place to note a style. Djegan 21:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Good spot. Didn't know it existed. But we should xref there from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Specific issues as well. Frelke 06:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, have it point to the Irish mos, they things can be fleshed out their. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we all happy to move forward on this now ? Frelke 16:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose this. It's needless overspecification. And the Republic of Ireland is a state, not a country. Palmiro | Talk 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between a state and a country ? Frelke 14:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly if you read country you might not be mistaken if you though a state was indeed a type of country; theirfore a state is a country? (on the other hand country is such a broad term so as to make its usage ambiguous in any case). Djegan 21:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have updated/added to MOS at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#Republic of Ireland / Ireland in location introductions as per WP:BOLD . Frelke 19:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, note the geographic location in Ireland (the island) and the political location (county, nearest town/city, Republic of Ireland). These towns are after all in Ireland, not just the Republic of Ireland. zoney ♣ talk 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Names of Ireland

Whilst on this matter of names, as an informal discussion at this stage, how do people feel about a merger between Alternative names for Northern Ireland and Names of the Irish state to an article Names of Ireland as a complement to Ireland. Both articles in their present form are not ideal; the names of the articles for a start brings a cringe or two to mind, additionally a single article could be benificial (one stopping point for a common problem), split of course into two main sections. Bear in mind Category:Country name etymology, in particular Names of China, Names of Korea means that it is not unprecidented in wikipedia.

How do people feel, one step too far or otherwise, feedback welcome. Djegan 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Snoutwood (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify the point on informal discussion; what I mean by this is that no vote will take place and the issue will be resolved by consensus and discussion alone. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages does not require a vote and a merge tag is not required (at least on my reading of it). Obviously if their is a clear disagreement merging would be inappropriate. Djegan 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i would support the merge, i would guess you could get come flack for the NI group, but i think using the example that you have put forward, their are similarties, Also considering that in concept, not as much in wording, both articles state the same ideas, and that it would maybe remove some redundancy. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. But I don't speak for the "Northern Ireland group" as a whole! Mal usually has some good input to these type of things. However it would be a fairly complicated merge and agreement on it would depend on the end content of the article. And it should link to British Isles (terminology). Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any need for such a merger. It seems like provocative border-denial. There is not much overlap at present between the 2 articles, and what there is could easily be deleted from the "wrong" article. The issues involved in why there are varying names are different. If you want a "one stop shop" why not just merge everthing into British Isles (terminology)? I would certainly favour abolishing the crappy Éire article and farming its content off into Names of the Irish state and Republic of Ireland Act. jnestorius^(talk) 09:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not intended to be border-denial, but certainly I do understand the possible reservations on both sides and thats why I am not going to force the issue of merger; it must be consensus and possitive. Merger to British Isles (terminology) would undoubtly raise a lot of objections, my own feeling is that that article is the most hideous thing ever; not incidentially because its about the British Isles but because its as big as its parent, if not bigger. Certainly I have some agreement with you about the Éire article. Djegan 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly see a need for a merger. The two articles are talking about the names of two quite separate entities. Palmiro | Talk 13:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

CFD

I have proposed a renaming of two County Londonderry categories here. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

anyone know about trains?

Sorry, despite having consensus, still insisting that.

In case any of you didn't know, the British (Great Britain) and Irish (North + Republic) railway networks are different, viz they are physically separate, have different gauges, different history, regulatory framework, and so on. Anyway, we decided some time ago Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes to treat them logically and separately, yet some people are still insisting that NIR is part of the "UK network" and so thus should be in template:British_TOCs. Despite consensus at template talk:British_TOCs (we had the mandatory vote currently at 9-4), there does seem to be some unfortunate edit warring trying to insist that NIR is somehow a train operating company. Anyway, relevant Irish views on this are welcome. — Dunc|☺ 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify there is no one insisting that NIR is part of any "UK Network", merely that it is a company that operates trains in the United Kingdom, which surely no one can deny. Please check the discussion page for the above mentioned template for information about this issue. --Achmelvic 13:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish Warpipes

Should Irish Warpipes direct to Great Irish Warpipes (this is the Status Quo at present)? Or should it be the other way round? Red blaze. See talk at talk:Great Irish Warpipes.

New stub type for Irish Kings, etc

There's a new stub type, {{Ireland-royal-stub}} / Category:Irish royalty stubs; I'm populating it with the crop of obviously double-stubbed articles. Doubtless there are more lurking in various nooks and crannies, if people want to slap the tag on now, or use it in future. Alai 06:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be use it for Irish queens ? :-) Frelke 06:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did say "etc", but don't take that as too broad a brief. :) Alai 06:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Northern Whig

I started this article today. I'm a bit concerned with the accuracy of the history. Can anyone help out? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Armada in Ireland

Looking for non-copyright-vio photos for Spanish Armada in Ireland. Locations: Streeda Strand in Sligo, Cliffs of Moher, Liscannor Bay, Loop Head, Blasket Islands, Valentia Island etc. Thanks.--shtove 00:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Consider doing a search on Flikr for CC2.0 like FLIKR SEARCH - CC2.0 - MOHER. Just be sure you stick to the rules of the licence if you chose to upload to WP. (Like referencing source, author, or whatever else is prescribed by the licence [3]). Guliolopez 11:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks.--shtove 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry newb question, but....

How do I add my name to the list of Irish wikipedians, without having to change all the numbers of users belowe me?

All you need to do is click the [edit] button by "Active Irish Wikipedians" (or click here), scroll down the list and insert your self alphabetically, and then increment the "Total" by 1.

(You don't have to change all the numbers of users below you. Prefixing a line with # adds a numbered bullet. Everyone "below you" will be renumbered automatically.)

PS. Consider signing posts with ~~~~.

PPS. Welcome...

Guliolopez 14:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Some people mightn;t have been as nice dealing with such a n00bish question ;). Been here for a member for a good while, recently decided I might as well become active and do something. Thanks. (Derry Boi 14:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Welcome, but you forgot to increase the total by 1. It now says 115. Cheers ww2censor 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Town Names in Irish

Just curious what the call is on the inclusion of the irish names of towns in the county articles. Their is no MOS related stance on this issue, that i am aware of or can see, so i am holding back with maiking edits. County Kerry is an example of what i am talking about, and while the county is part of the Gaeltacht, i have also seen this happen on other counties that are not. Thoughts? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If your meaning the dual English/Irish list of towns and villages, such as in the County Kerry article, then I think this is uneccessary at best, at worst it violates Wikipedia is not a list of indiscrimate information. Having said that I would not change it lest we might upset someone and start a revert war as English/Irish usage can be a big issue in some areas. But it should not become the standard for presenting names of places in Ireland. Djegan 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The anglicized names are meaningless, and they do derive from real words. I know some Irish Wikipedians were tortured with Irish as children and dislike it, but that's not a reason not to give Irish versions in lists like the one on the Kerry page referred to. Peppering articles with dual names might be less useful, but in a list it seems a good idea to me. Evertype 09:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand the format of the list at County Mayo is pretty nice, and in fairness only lists the Irish names in the Gaeltachtaí. Evertype 09:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern but I can say I was never "tortured" in my youth, outright. But it is not the valid inclusion of dual lists that concerns me where the English and Irish are equally used in those places, particularily in the Gaeltacht. What does concern me is that we may start a craze whereby their must be a dual list for every county and every town and village - irrespective of local usage on the ground and this would be a bogus agenda. Whatever names are used - English or Irish - they must reflect reality in usage be that common or legal.

One example of what clearly defies common sense is what 82.18.186.145 is doing at the moment. This user is, to the benifit of wikipedia, is creating infoboxes in town/village articles but seams intent on displaying the Irish in the box more prominantly even when the article is under the English name. Djegan 17:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Irish town names in Irish? We'll have less of that subversion. Just who, who do you people think you are? And never mind this fellow- he's clearly having enormous difficulties with the peasants' tongue to have the comfort- never mind the generosity of heart- to find a place for Irish in his life. In that human, all too human way, what he does not understand, he hates. 193.1.172.138 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You need a reality check. Ireland is not, and never has been, since independence a gaelic paradise. If this is the best you can do [4], [5], whatever it proves, its not that I am the biggot. If you have a problem, then give specifics on the talk page in question. WP:NPA. Djegan 23:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop bickering. Back to the topic: Ireland has two official languages, and most place-names have an English and an Irish version. Both should be given in articles about Irish towns. The same practice is followed on the Vicipéid by the way. I am sure that there will be no consensus to go and delete the Irish versions of place-names from this Wiki. Evertype 09:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it not time for the current name usage on Irish town pages to be updated to reflect the post Official Languages Act situation. Nowhere in the country are there now road signs with names such as spiddle on them. That is the reality, and in my opinion a step forward from the previous daft two region situation. To continue with an outdated approach would be similar to continuing to have the Gdansk page titled Danzig. Afterall, that was the name of the city in English until the political change on the ground was acknowledged by a change to using the name Gdansk. This does not preclude the useful sentance "Gdańsk (['ɡdaɲsk]?·i; German: Danzig (help·info), Kashubian: Gduńsk, Latin: Gedania; older English Dantzig also other languages)". Taibhdhearc 16:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is a style one theirfore WP:IMOS and WP:UE are the relevant documents in wikipedia, not the Official Languages Act or an order made in pursuance thereof. Djegan 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Regional Noticeboard template

I think we should have {{RWNBs}} on our noticeboard. Where ? Frelke 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

on the front page. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Transport classification

Is there a Wikpedia category that classifies roads by the code numbers in any part of Ireland? Several otherwise distinct streets of Dublin might be grouped together in such categories - e.g. the orbital routes mentioned in the new street atlas of Dublin. Autarch 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm what exacty do you mean? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You talking of more a list of roads and streets, that could be unWikipedian. WP:NOT ant_ie 10:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found a category that describes what I'm talking about - [6]. One of the main reasons for it is that some roads are part of a larger regional road - in fact, the entry [7] lists several such roads (redirecting users to the page itself when they try to refer to the road by its' code). It would be useful to someone looking up a route on two different maps of significantly different scale - e.g. the Ordnance Survey Ireland sheet 50 in the 50,000 scale series and the Dublin Street Atlas. My apologies if this is against policy - how is my request in violation and how do I change this? Autarch 18:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am still not sure what you are looking to do, but if i get what your saying, i would sy that your best bet would be to create the articles for the regional roads, which i think should be fine, and then create a new cat called Category:Regional Roads in Ireland or something along that line, simial to what has been done with Category:National Primary Route though i would not do the templat for the fact of the numers of raods that yet have an article. If your taliking about specific street names, i am not sure if an article should be done up unless the road is sigificant in a way of historic/cultural/civic way or it's some kind of sigificant throughfare, i am not sure how this relates to the OSI map, i dont have one, and i cant redealy get my hands on one. But were not really a map directory so i am not sure where you want to take this. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Any street forming part of an R route should be added to that article (or the article created if it does not exist). A summary of the route should be added to Regional Road and the route linked from there. As an example: Childers Road (R509 road). R routes are part of the national route network, and thus should be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Any major streets not part of an R-route may possibly be permitted their own article (e.g. O'Connell Street) - but if it's some minor street, without much article content/history - I would think it might be scrutinised for merge/deletion.

All the National Primary Routes have their own articles (see Template:NPR_IRL). Most of the National Secondary Routes do not, but these can be created. Alternatively (and in addition), you can just add the route summary to National Secondary Route.

Please be aware that motorways in Ireland (the Republic) are not seperate routes from National Primary Routes (but form part of them). In theory, one could probably have a motorway section on a National Secondary Route.

Presbyterian Church in Ireland

Hi all, I have started to expand the PCI articles on Wikipedia. I have added a template {{PCI}}, and started a few. There are a few of things;

Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland - Does anyone have access to a recent list of Moderators?
Irish Presbyterians - I have suggested taking the list of people from the main article and creating this new one.
General_Assembly_of_the_Presbyterian_Church_in_Ireland - This still needs a bit of work.

I have decided to try and build up these articles over the summer. If anyone can help give me a shout, thanks. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith Talk to me 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Might be able to help with biog details of presbyterians in 16th-early 17th C. Suggestions?--Shtove 20:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Shtove, there is a list of people on the Presbyterian Church in Ireland article. If you think you could add anything about anyone on the list I think most of them need work. In addition, if you know anything about the history of Presbyterianism in Ireland that section is a bit on the skinny side too, thanks. <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith

Talk to me 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sinn Fein MPs

User:Wally has removed infoboxes and categories relating to Bobby Sands and Owen Carron being MPs, due to their unwillingness to swear the parliamentary oath to the Queen. He also removed the references to them being Baby of the House. I reverted the changes to the Bobby Sands article as it was my belief that they were still MPs, whether they took their seats or not. Is this correct? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. They were in the same position as are the current abstentionist SF MPs. I wouldn't be so sure about the "Baby of the House" thing though - perhaps this is something which only applies to those who sit in the House. --Ryano 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Baby of the House article states that it is the "youngest member of the House of Commons", but makes no mention of whether the MP takes his seat or not. As far as I know it's a completely unofficial term, so Sands and Carron should be included in my opinion. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the "elected representatives" page on the Sinn Féin website calls the current lot "Westminster MPs". Timrollpickering 10:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

EU: "Éire Ireland"

Apparently the government has decided that "Éire Ireland" is to be used for the states name from 2007 with regard to EU business. See It's 'Eire Ireland' now (registration required). Djegan 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note two paragraphs from today's Irish Times:

The State is also sometimes referred to as the "Republic of Ireland", for example in the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, but this is technically a description rather than the official name, which continues to be "Éire" in the Irish language and "Ireland" in the English language, in all treaties and legal documents.

Ten years ago, the Constitution Review Group suggested that Article 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann was unnecessarily complicated and recommended instead a simple declaration that, "The name of the State is Ireland."

I think that we should stress on Wikipedia wherever "Republic of Ireland" is mentioned that this is, as the article above suggests, a technical and not a legal description.--Damac 07:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen any press releases on government websites; but here is an interview clip that Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern made with "Morning Ireland" on Radio 1 on June 28 when announced (RealAudio clip). Djegan 19:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't suggesting "Éire Ireland" is used as an English title. Merely that both Irish and English are present on notices etc. I can't see it affecting anything on Wikipedia, although adding the tit-bit of info somewhere is probably worthwhile.

As regards "Republic of Ireland", this is already explained on Wikipedia, especially at Republic of Ireland itself (which clearly lets readers know that Ireland is the official name of the state). The use of Republic of Ireland is reasonable enough for disambiguation purposes, as that's one of the reasons for having it as an official description. [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] is more suitable for articles discussing situations where the official name of the state is used (e.g. EU).

zoney ♣ talk 14:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

catholic church position/influence on disabled people and marrige

Hello,

I am trying to find information on the Catholic church in Irleand's position concerning the marrige of people unable to procreate. I am a screenwriter working on a story where this would be an issue for someof the characters. The story is set in the 1960's - 1970's. I have heard that the positon was that the church forbid such marriges, but I have not come across any hard evidence as I've only been researching this for a few days. Any help or even a point toward a relevent web site, book, blog or magaizine/newspaper article would be a big help.

Thanks

Frank

Northern Irish murals

I created this article today, cutting and pasting most of the text from the mural page and adding more images. Too many images? Not enough? Any other input? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. It'd be good to have some scheme for which murals are selected for display on the page. Having an arbitrary choice will ensure that eventually there are "too many". The Commons link is a good idea for this reason, nevertheless, some reasoning for the displayed subset should be explained. zoney ♣ talk 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Politics.ie wiki copyrights and Eamon Broy

Hello there, mates. Is anyone farmiliar with the copyright status of the politics.ie wiki? I searched all over their site for a copyright notice, and couldn't find one. The reason I'm bringing this up is that someone copied their article on Eamon Broy to ours (see here), which I reverted due to the potential copyvio. However, if anyone's familiar with the site and knows it's PD or GFDL or something, then brilliant, we'll copy it over. Otherwise, I'll write 'em a letter. Thanks! Snoutwood (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When their is doubt copyright should be assumed. Djegan 18:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed so, hence the revert. Snoutwood (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that there is an incredible amount of material on the politics.ie wiki that has been lifted from this site without any attribution or acknowlegment.--Damac 11:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That wiki is run by and part of politics.ie and on their home page there is a clear copyright notice (bottom right), so we must assume the copyright covers all of thier site that includes their wiki too. Cheers ww2censor 12:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Thanks very much! Snoutwood (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that right? Do you have any examples? That's not a good thing and is worth an e-mail to them, which I'd be happy to do. Snoutwood (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Take the List of IRA Chiefs of Staff on the politics.ie wiki (created on 5 Jul 2005) and Wikipedia's List of IRA Chiefs of Staff (created 13 June). It's a carbon copy. --Damac 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I raised this on the politics.ie wiki some time ago. At the time the p.ie wiki was using this Creative Commons license but every mention of it seems to have gone now. I also can't find much further discussion of copyright issues on the site so my impression is that copyright issues aren't being given much consideration by the current administrators of that wiki. I'll bring it up again on politics.ie. --Ryano 12:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

That'd be brilliant. I'd love to know the result of that, so please bring the result of that back up here. Thanks very much! Snoutwood (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish law

I'm sure many are aware of these resources, but Irish Statute Book and Irish Legal Information Initiative are incredibly useful as reference resources for any subject pertaining to the Republic of Ireland that is regulated by law. Examples: Roads in Ireland (e.g. N1 road), Irish copyright law, National Monument (Ireland), Road speed limits in the Republic of Ireland, Road signs in the Republic of Ireland.

I think we could provide accurate information on Irish topics in many other areas, using these resources.

A quick note, the former link only covers up to 2003. The latter has up to recently, but does not have the actual documents for all SIs, etc. You can find some of these elsewhere using Google (in my case, some relevant SIs were on the Dept. of Transport site, I had found the titles on IRLII).

The former resource (Irish statute book online) is exceptional, with HTML documents of the Acts and SIs, and thus often includes inline links to referenced legislation etc.

zoney ♣ talk 14:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ireland locator map

Dublin

class=notpageimage|

"Dublin, Ireland"

As you can see on my userpage I have 3 locator map templates made, and I decided to take take the liberty of creating one from my across the border Irish friends (Northern Irish cross community development eat your heart out). I used it in the Schull article (which should be Schull, Ireland I may add, but I don't think Schull falls under many categories so I guess it's cool. To use it you go to www.multimap.com and use the co-ords (that are in the brackets) it takes them to an infinite amount of decimal places I believe, but just 2 is fine :) For the benefit of Dublin, if requested, I could make a Greated Dublin one too, as I made a Greater Belfast. To insert the locator map into an article use the following text.

{{Location map|Ireland|float=A|label=B|lat=C|long=D|position=E|width=F|caption=G"}}

Key:
A - left/right - location on page
B - Label of location (will appear beside red dot)
C - latitude x.xx
D - longitude -x.xx
E - left/right - side text will appear beside red dot
F - width in pixels (example beside is 150)
G - caption - text in thumb box, in the example's case; "Dublin, Ireland"

I hope this pleases. :)

--Dom0803 17:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've pasted this in my user-page for later use. If it works, then thank you, thank you; if it doesn't, then by jesus ...--Shtove 19:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

- Hey no probs, buddy. Just glad to help. :) I think that's a good idea to do that in your userpage as then maybe it can boost the profile of the locator map. It hasn't exactly taken off, but if it would, it would be sure to be great.

If town articles in Ireland require disambiguation, they are placed at Townname, County Countyname. For example, Kill, County Kildare. This makes most sense, as there are even locations in Ireland where the county is usually appended in such fashion, even in speech, where the context is not clear. First option though is to place the article at the location without disambiguation (e.g. Tralee). Ah - and for Dublin, usually the format Town/suburb, Dublin is used (e.g. Swords, Dublin), as the city encompasses most of County Dublin, and it avoids the need to use Fingal, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, South Dublin, which still aren't as commonly used in informal contexts as traditional Irish counties. Also places may not easily fall into one of the Dublin subdivisions. zoney ♣ talk 23:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a version of this template to Dublin - {{location map|Ireland|label=Dublin|position=left|width=150|lat=53.3416|long=-6.2573|caption=Dublin city location|float=right}} (you can leave "caption" blank if you like). I don't know how to do one for Greater Dublin, but it'd be nice to know - anyone? Cormaggio ^@ 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Roads in Ireland

I've been working on improving the articles on roads here, such as N7, N11 and even the likes of N10 and N12.

One thing that is missing however, is photographs. If any of you are travelling around the country, could I ask if you could consider taking some shots along our national roads?

Junctions and signage for junctions are probably quite useful, as are shots that show clear dual carriageway, or appalling narrow winding road (just don't stop at a dangerous bend to take the photo :)

Also if anyone is Donegal, I'm curious as to the state of the N13 - as it has no upgrades planned, and there were none listed on the NRA site as completed between 2000-2005. I've travelled on this route, I think it is mostly newish road that would have been built in the 80s/90s. Can anyone up those nether-regions confirm?

zoney ♣ talk 09:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Saw the route marker images you've been adding - good work, but the motorway markers probably should be in Motorway Permanent font (just like UK motorways), not Transport like the N-road ones. I don't see why we can't just use the UK markers in these bits, seeing as our Entry to Motorway sign is identical to the UK design. I've been using the UK motorway infobox on the Irish motorway page, though maybe we should have an Irish motorway infobox instead (adding maybe "N-route start" and "N-route end". Any ideas?--Rdd 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

These are meant to mimic the signs used above "confirmation" destination signage. For photos of the signs I'm talking about, see [8] (N4) and [9] (M4). The panel with the route number is a separate small rectangular sign above the main destination information sign. ~~The font is the same for M and N numbers in these particular boxes as far as I can tell from what I've seen around the country.~~* The font I have used is not an exact match (in fact, I do not know what it is, as it is a substitute font used by PSP for a font that won't work properly. It's the closest match I could get though).

Note that as this is Ireland, the signs do not match across our route network, different sizes, formats and dimensions are used in a haphazard fashion around the place. As such, I think what I have is "close enough". Compare with the image by someone else used on A3 road.

zoney ♣ talk 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

*OK, it seems there is a second font for motorway route numbers, (see [10] for an example). I don't have a matching font. Really, the M7/etc boxes are just to avoid confusion, as having the N7/etc route markers on their own would look odd. But adding the motorway entry signs would also be strange. I'd say leave as is unless it's a real problem. If I get an appropriate font, there are few to change :) By the way, the font PSP used for the other boxes is Arial, but an unusual (and appropriate) scale. zoney ♣ talk 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, the CBRD site has recreations of the relevant fonts. Used those to create the image on the right. I'll do the others tomorrow. zoney ♣ talk 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The fonts are Transport and Motorway, the same fonts used in the UK, though we also have a modified Transport Medium Italic font which is unique to Ireland and is used for Irish placenames.

If you want, SABRE is a good place to find all this sort of info, there's lots of pics of the Irish road network there too though I wouldn't use them on Wikipedia without the original poster's consent. --Rdd 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'd found the fonts on there alright. The motorway signs have been redone. The N ones are close enough, plus the transport font on CBRD is problematic (the characters do not align vertically correctly). zoney ♣ talk 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The motorway infobox is tricky. To be honest, I don't think it is necessary. Motorways in the UK are an entirely separate class of roads. In Ireland, they are simply a restriction and road type for an existing route classification (national primary roads - or in the future, even national secondary roads or regional roads).

Junctions are numbered along the entire national road, not along just the motorway sections. It seems that guesswork was involved in any early junction numbering. In any case, a new junction numbering scheme has been arrived at, the good people at NRA emailed me a map of the N7/M7 new junction numbers (and indeed, the N4/M4 to Kinnegad, I've to add that information). You can see these junction numbers for yourself on the updated N7 Naas Road dual carriageway, and in other locations where new signs are up (e.g. J17 on the N7 where the N8 leaves it outside Portlaoise).

If you like the motorway infobox, I'd just use it in the current fashion, the UK one seems fair enough. Keep them as far as possible to the article section detailing those route sections that are motorway.

On another note, having a separate article on M7 motorway is somewhat redundant. The junctions are detailed in N7 (as they are part of that route), and the upgrades mentioned in M7 motorway should similarly be detailed in N7 road.

zoney ♣ talk 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My own preference is that the M1 and M50, as fully fledged motorways with very small (in the N1 case) and none (in the M50) case non-motorway sections should be listed as M1 and M50 respectively, and the other motorways incorporated into respective N-road articles. --Rdd 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the N1/M1 is fine laid out as is (quick intro of M1 motorway in leading sentence, and prominent use of the M1 motorway infobox). There isn't enough content to justify splitting the article, and it would be incorrect to lump it all in under the M1 motorway. zoney ♣ talk 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

On a separate note, I've added some referenced stuff about Ireland at 2+1 road (someone finally created the article :D). If you're interested in roads in the country, the linked NRA "interim policy" document is a good read. zoney ♣ talk 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Manual of style

Hello again. I've made some suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), for addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles).

Thoughts or comments appreciated.

zoney ♣ talk 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also asked about Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#Alphabetisation_of_.22Mc.22_and_.22Mac.22_in_surnames. Comments welcome. Ian Cheese 21:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

River Farset

Is the Irish for River Farset Abhainn an Feirste? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting one. Translated from the Belfast (Béal Feirste) article at ga.wikipedia: "Belfast's name comes from the fearast (genitive feirste), or tidal ford [i.e. ridge of sand in tidal waters], at the mouth of the Lagan, as the settlement was first built at that location." I can't find fearast in my Ó Dónaill dictionary, so I'm guessing it's a non-standard dialectal word; feirste is listed as a variant genitive for the standard Irish fearsaid. Abhainn na Feirste (sic, literally river of the tidal ford) would thus seem a likely candidate but I can't find a single example of that phrase online. Does anyone have a map of Belfast/Antrim that includes Irish placenames? --Kwekubo 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Cities in Ireland

Their is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Cities in Ireland about the article. Unfortunately a deeply point-of-view and original research version was reverted to and a straw poll is currently been conducted to determine if it should stay. The material is seriously deficient and substandard.

Comments are requested at Talk:Cities in Ireland as a matter of urgency. Its not going to do us any justice on wikipedia if the issue is ignored. Djegan 12:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to improve the article but keep getting censored, by one editor, could people investigate? Djegan 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand the disagreement (i.e. 'What is a city?') but I'm having trouble getting worked up over it or even seeing it as an 'issue.' If one person is continually reverting your edits, it seems the 3RR would come into play, wouldn't it? Dppowell 06:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Irish Language Place Name Mover

Yet another in our series of users who move town articles to Irish language versions, in violation of WP:UE and WP:IMOS. User:MacRusgail has now moved Spiddal, twice. Someone else experienced in explaining policy and concensus might be useful. --Kiand 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is well done, User:MacRusgail. When it comes to Irish culture, anything that incites the venom of User:Kiand and User:Djegan must be enlightened.(Personal attack removed) 193.1.172.138 18:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd invite our anonymous user - not signing in often says a lot - to cite the problems he claims exist in my command of the English language. My entire edit history is available for his perusal, if he so wishes, although I'm not going to accept any answers until they build up the courage to actually put a name to their attacks. --Kiand 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean Quinn

El Gringo and I are having a content dispute over this article. The page history will explain it fairly clearly. What are people's opinions? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No takers? There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) to suggest that post 1920 all areas in Northern Ireland should be described as Northern Ireland, but it's not mentioned on the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) page. Would anyone be willing to vote (whichever way you want) on this if I propose it? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - its just pure mischief placing "Ireland" as more prominant, or replacing, "Northern Ireland" in an article that cites a county in Northern Ireland. I would second an appropriate proposal as its just common sense. Djegan 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Errors in the list of medieval archbishops of Armagh?

A German wikipedian seems to have done a thorough review of the list of archbishops - now all what is needed is for a competent volunteer to convert it back into the two English articles - see Talk:List of Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Mark little really need two articles?

(moved from Noticeboard) Mark Little (Irish journalist)

Mark Little (RTÉ journalist) (I suggest removing this one)

Beta 00:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree Guliolopez 10:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree Sounds right to me too ww2censor 13:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

David McDonnell

Hi, Could someone take a look at this? Seems like a hoax to me. Ditto Carlo Rendell. Thanks, Dlyons493 Talk 22:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. The articles David McDonnell, Andrew McDonnell, Carlo Rendell, Manuel Osuwebe-Fortune and others were all created by User:Dmcdonn4 (talk) and all appear to be various NN/Vanity/Hoax rubbish. There appears to be a bunch of users (possibly the real world idiots who are variously the "subjects" of 3 of these articles) and sockpuppets operating from User:164.143.240.33 (talk), and User:Richardss (talk) trying to give credence to the articles on these Irish/Dublin "journalists", "rightwing activists", "politicians", "international cricketers" and "giants of the medical community". The interesting point that might be noted for the guys from UCD, TCD, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers is that (if these are their real names and the details are in anyway correct) then it is probably in their own interests for them to be deleted soon. I say this because, certainly as is the case for the guys who works at PWC, it probably won't do his job much good when PWC are contacted about the wikipedia vandalism, and furnished with enough detail to confirm who the real person is. Guliolopez 14:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't rubbish articles such as the above just be speedied? Bastun 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

They probably could have been, but the contributor who first caught them was conscientious and flagged them as AfD rather than speedy. So - though it opens a window for these idiots to waste everyone's time with "debate" - in the interests of fairness, the AfD process should probably be seen through. (I thought about doing it, but I didn't think it appropriate to change the TAG from AfD to Speedy. However, I may be wrong, and there may be precedence to do that when the VN is blatant). Guliolopez 15:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As the tagger, I did consider speedying it as a CSD A7, but thought there were borderline notability claims, (I hadn't seen the other articles at that point) so though it better to go through afd for that reason, plus going though afd means that if it gets re-created, it can be G4'd, wheres if it was re-created after a speedy, but with more notable claims, it would have to be afd'd anyway. It's fine to add a speedy tag to an article that's up for afd if you wish, I have done so in the past, so long as the afd notice remains in place in case the speedy is rejected. (see WP:PROD#Notes for a similar situation). However, since the afd has started, I'd suggest that an early close would be more appropiate than a speedy, as the former will make recreations valid G4's, whereas a speedy would not. Regards, MartinRe 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points MartinRe. (And good catch on this rubbish at the outset :) ). As you say, some of articles in this grouping have one or two points which suggest notability, and which therefore probably deserved review. When taking the original versions of each as a whole however, it does suggest an intent of VN/Hoax. May consider flagging for "early close" per your suggestion. Thanks again. Guliolopez 16:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving some lists...

The List of Irish television channels and List of Irish radio stations have both grown to the level where they provide far, far more information than a simple list should, and could both be expanded to well beyond what they currently carry, so I'm considering moving them to Television in Ireland and Radio in Ireland respectively. Neither needs a WP:RM due to lack of articles at the target, but I just wanted to have a quick check to make sure nobody objects to this move. --Kiand 00:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, Kiand. Articles are always better than lists. Be bold!
Scolaire 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Death statistics in towns

I would appreciate if anyone with an interest would look at this discussion. Ardfern added a vast amount of information from CAIN on this subject early in the year, adding greatly to a lot of NI town and village artices. It was agreed in April that only incidents with 5 or more deaths would be added, and I went through all the town and village articles to reflect this decison. Ardfern has now had a rethink and started adding any incident with two or more deaths. Due to the nature of the Troubles, this means adding a long list of information to, in some cases, quite short articles. I feel this is unnecessary and skews the balance of the article. To quote myself from the earlier discussion -

"If you go to town articles of any other country that has had a situation like our own, you're not going to find a list of the victims. The only things that should remain are major attacks that made national news at the time, such as Warrenpoint, Greysteel, Claudy etc. All this information is available on CAIN anyway, we're just replicating it here."

Any opinions? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)