This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. 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 talk page.
Is it in order for me to move that article into mainspace, change the title, and then merge the others into it? I don't want to mess with the AfC process. If it's easier, you could just create the article and leave us to do the merging. Scolaire (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. This is an inaccurate use of the merge procedure, coming under the "should be avoided" criterion. Is it possible that all these could have been merged because one person says it's "too small"? Martin Callinan, for instance, was a Garda Commissioner (just like Fachtna Murphy and the others) whose page is much better developed than the rest of them, and includes mention of his long career before 2014. John Wilson has appeared independently on TV, been the subject of documentaries and has had separate involvement/interest in politics to give some examples, all of which covers at least half his page, with virtually no mention of McCabe or Callinan. The only one that could possibly be merged is Guerin Report into Maurice McCabe. The rest are loosely connected at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.76.150 (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
"Just like Fachtna Murphy and the others" is a tad misleading. There is only a handful of articles on Garda Commissioners, the majority of them on early commissioners, such as Eoin O'Duffy, Eamon Broy and Michael Staines, who were notable for things other than merely being commissioners. The Callinan article was only created when the whistle-blowing affair hit the headlines. Merely being involved in some high-profile cases does not make him otherwise notable. John Wilson is notable only for his involvement in the affair. That RTÉ did a programme on him does not alter that fact. Every one of the four articles owe their existence to the one affair, and none of them would have been created but for it. The affair is big news in Ireland right now, but not internationally, and it will be forgotten in a few years time. It just about merits one article; the others can be trimmed to the relevant bits and merged in. Scolaire (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Fachtna Murphy's predecessor Noel Conroy was not an early commissioner either. All three mentioned here pass GNG. A large proportion of Wilson isn't even directly about the "affair" and Callinan was commissioner for years before 2014 so how can he be merged into an article about a 2014 event? As for "not internationally" this and this show some international interest. "It will be forgotten in a few years time" is speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.76.150 (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Noel Conroy has a tag saying "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline" – the very first edit after the article was created in 2009! I don't know who you think you're fooling: we can see these things with a single mouse click. Murphy's article is not so tagged...yet. I think it ought to be. Before Conroy, how many articles on post-1940 commissioners can you count?
A large part of Wilson's article and a large part of Callinan's article are not about the affair, and those large parts are mostly unencylopaedic. What is relevant can be retained when they are merged.
I didn't say that there was no interest in Britain or elsewhere, I said it is not big news there. And if you want to quote policy, WP:RECENTISM is far more relevant than WP:CRYSTAL. After all, I'm not proposing to say in any article whether it will still be news in a few years' time.
I'd expect such a Merge would result in a single 33,069 or so byte article which seems entirely reasonable to me. — {{U|Technical 13}}(e • t • c)20:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Technical Opine Remembering that we need to retain sourcing information (WP:MERGE, Reasons for Merger, 3rd paragraph "Merging should always leave a redirect..."), I think the best solution is to accept the AFC submission and then merge all 3 articles into a unified submission. My justification for this is that if the AFC draft is left declined it may be deleted when the draft goes over 6 months without any edits to it (at which time CSD:G13 would be applicable). Hasteur (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
So, FoCuSandLeArN, how will you determine when of if there is a reasonable conclusion? I cannot initiate a proper merge discussion if I cannot tag all the articles, so we're left with this part-consultation, part-merge discussion, part-technical thread on a non-ideal page which is unlikely to reach any conclusion. And if by any chance there's a decision not to merge, will you create the article anyway? If so, what difference does it make if you do it now or do it later. Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think there was any concensus whatsoever as per the discussion above. I've accepted the article so you can play with it at your own leisure. I suggest you use some patience in the future; after all, you wouldn't be talking about the article hadn't I let you know about its existence. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Help needed
Does anyone know anything about those two paintings? We are looking for a source so we can safely keep the images on Commons. Any additional information is also very welcome! Thanks for your time! --Hedwig in Washington(TALK)03:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
We have categories for entities that expired many centuries ago: empires, countries, provinces. North Tipperary, of blessed memory, is not yet cold in the grave when it has been consigned to the oblivion that is re-direct. Mr. ODEA has been busy de-populating and redirecting articles and categories away from North Tipperary. Is this in order? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
To confess, I too have been doing my bit to bury North Tipperary; mostly references to locations of towns but I think O'Dea goes too far. For example, he redirected the 'Local councillors in North Tipperary' to 'Local councillors in County Tipperary', and did the same with South Tipp. The North Tipp councillors category is a historic one, a record of those who served on North Tipp County Council, and it should be restored. Category:Councillors of Dublin County Council is an example of a category for members of a former local government entity. On the other hand, many other North Tipperary categories like Rivers, Lakes, Mountains, Strip clubs etc., that you created LL, will get my vote to be upmerged. Snappy (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It would have been good manners if Laurel Lodged had done me the courtesy of alerting me to the fact that my actions were being discussed; I stumbled upon this discussion by accident. And why "mister"? I have never declared a gender. I merged the north and south counties following the coming-into-effect of legislation on 3 June 2014 amalgamating the two counties, which no longer exist. It was a large, repetitive job of about 680 edits (you're welcome) but I can correct any mistakes brought to my attention. Further, even more tedious, work remains to be done fixing references in articles to the former counties, as alluded to by Snappy. That is an even bigger task, unless we can find someone who can write a script to do it. I was thinking since yesterday of writing a note here to inquire if anyone knows how to find one of these coders. Does anyone know? — O'Dea (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Forgive my discourtesy O'Dea, though it's rather mild by comparison to the ravaging of NT and ST at your hands. Snappy is right - though his interpretation is at the very mildest end of the scale in my view. All of NT is now historic but that's no reason to hide its brief but glorious flowering. The hunt for a coder may be a good idea, though not to continue the de-population but instead to undo the devastation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Before my work, many hundreds of articles were miscategorised. Do you have any positive suggestions to make or do you merely wish to continue to use the Wikipedia talk process to express bitterness and piss on other editors' work and time devoted to the project? Please adhere to WP:Civil and contribute any positive suggestions you may have concerning Tipperary instead of merely griping. — O'Dea (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
What mis-categorisation? All were diffused to the lowest level of detail. Each NT / ST category is a child of Tipperary. You fixed something that was not broken. It's been a colossal waste of time in my view, and of that I'm positive. I positively recommend that you revert the damage. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Damage? You cant be serious Laurel Lodged! Your argument was the Irish categories should be divided along current administrative boundaries. I dont suppose you would advocate having County Dublin cats since it had a long and glorious existence.! Fair Play O'Dea keep up the good work. Finnegas (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I have never advocated the destruction of County Dublin as a category. Even though it is, like NT & ST, redundant as a county and administrative territory, it is still noteworthy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a bot account that has been laying idle for some time. It's time it got some work to do. If someone lays out clearly the task to be done, I can write up a script and get the task approved over the next week or so. --Tóraí (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I am still waiting for @O'Dea: to come up with some justification for his "work" on the NT / ST categories. If he/she cannot produce such a rationale, then he/she should revert the "work". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
It's a looong road to (fixing) Tipperary
Snappy: I have responded to your concern above and reverted my category changes for the councillors in North and South Tipperary, and reinstated the two categories that contained them. Tell me of other articles that require category reversion if you identify any.
Tóraí: The automation of article updates using a script is not nearly as straightforward a problem as I imagined. I envisioned creating a list of articles containing links to North Tipperary and South Tipperary and getting a bot operating in batch mode to read the list and simply substitute County Tipperary within those articles in all cases. This approach is crude and prone to error. There are too many cases where references to the old names remains legitimate even after amalgamation of the counties. I also imagined an alternative bot operating in interactive mode using a list of articles to investigate, where the editor could open each article and review it intelligently before deciding whether to perform an automated substitution at the click of a button. Such an interactive bot would be more complex to code than a simple batch-mode bot.
An additional difficulty is that even generating an accurate list of articles to review is not trivial. A list of articles containing Wikilinks to North Tipperary and South Tipperary can be retrieved easily enough (example included in collapsed green box below, as illustration), but there may be, in addition, articles containing references to "North Tipperary" or "South Tipperary" that are not Wikilinked. Searching for such articles creates many false positives because, for example, a search for non-Wikilink references returns articles containing templates at the bottom of the article which contain mentions to the two old counties. Such articles might not require editor review at all. I will continue to analyse the scope of the task as time permits. In any case, the number of articles to consider ranges rather widely between about 600 and 1,200! — O'Dea (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
O'Dea: Sounds like a job for something like the AutoWikiBrowser. This tool semi-automates tedious tasks. If you download the software, familiarise yourself with it and come up with a plan, I will approve you for its use. --Tóraí (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Hellllooooooo Just like to point out that all of the above contravenes wiki policy. Before anybody fires up a bot, let's first hear the rationale for disappearing all NT / St cateogries. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
How so? Why would we want Rivers of North Obselete County and Rivers of South Obselete County when all we need is Rivers of Current County? I'd had hoped that you wouldn't throw a fit when North and South Tipperary were abolished and the inevitable changes that would result on Wikipedia, but alas poor Laurel Lodged! Snappy (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've already given it to you, but of course, you don't want to hear it. Instead, you just propose some What about X-ery and compare apples to oranges? You keep on eye on WP:CFD now. Snappy (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I have not found an explanation from Snappy for the disappearing of the NT/ ST category structure. All I found was a rhetorical question. I provided an answer above (i.e. there is ample precedent for keeping categories for former entities). Snappy thinks that this is apples and oranges - it is not. The (Roman) analogy is apt. So please set out a succinct reason for disappearing the NT / ST tree structure (instead of "I already told you"). No explanation at all is forthcoming from the main culprit - O'Dea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
What about something snappy like "The NT /ST tree categories should be deleted because them violate Wiki policies X, Y & Z". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thirty-one of the 179 citations are now dead links that either need archive links, possibly from the Wayback Machine, or updating and that excludes all the Irish Times citations, of which there are many, that nowadays require subscription, so there are blind to readers. Maybe we should try to avoid Irish Times links in citations when other accessable sources are available. I've several other bad links yesterday but this is an article that should be kept in better shape. Anyone who can help please step in and do what you can. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Irish Times is not the main problem. And when you have a decent article title, you can access most stuff through Highbeam. The Bannertalk19:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
But as I understand it you also need a subscription for Highbeam just like the Irish Times though it is less expensive, so it is almost as useful as the Irish Times except you can actually read the first few paragraphs. ww2censor (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
While that is somewhat useful for editors I cannot see casual readers bothering, besides which, free is only for 7 days otherwise it is $29.95 per month, etc. ww2censor (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
As of March 13, 2012 HighBeam has generously agreed to give free, full-access one-year accounts for Wikipedia editors to use, at the discretion of the community. HighBeam is excited about this and does not expect there to be a shortage of these free, one-year accounts; however, editors will have to have a one-year-old account and 1000 edits in order to qualify for one. At the end of one year, editors who found the resource useful can simply re-apply. So nothing to do with 7 days... The Bannertalk23:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that info. That's really useful to editors but again, as I said the casual reader is unlikely to bother, so we are still depriving them of a useful link through abd how we access source is not their concern, nor should it be. ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure
Whether the Category:North Tipperary and Category:South Tipperary and all their sub-cateogries ought to be de-populated and made into re-directs to Category:County Tipperary and its sub-cateogries. Whether the two categories are still notable, historical entities or may be entirely deprecated. Whether articles that formerly reported solely to one of the two categories (before their de-population)ought to have a double parentage to one of the two categories, as relevant, and County Tipperary. Question for voting purposes: Should Category:North Tipperary and Category:South Tipperary be retained, and relevant articles have double parentage? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The question is entirely composed of "whether...ors", and is therefore incapable of a yes/no answer. If anything, I would take a support answer as meaning "Category:North Tipperary and Category:South Tipperary and all their sub-cateogries ought to be de-populated and made into re-directs", because that is at the beginning of the question. Either the question ought to be re-phrased e.g. "Should Category:North Tipperary and Category:South Tipperary be retained, and relevant articles have double parentage?", or each of the possibilities (how many are there exactly?) should have its own subsection where participants can support or oppose. Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have re-directed this category to Category:Irish-language newspapers and renamed the categories in the handful of articles that contained the category. I hope that's the correct procedure...Hohenloh + 16:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The lead says "Term referring to people of ethnic Irish origin who preceed the Hiberno-Norse[1}. The source is [1] which doesn't mention Hiberno Irish - nor I think do any of the sources. Where he gets the idea that this is an ethnic group I'm not sure, but the term is normally used to refer to a dialect/language, isn't it? Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It has been brought to my attention, that there is currently an ongoing debate on the Magdalene asylum article. This debate is occurring with User:Signedzzz and revolves around the neutrality of the article as a whole, but primarily with the section Magdalene asylum#Catholic perspective and there appears to be no immediate solution. I am appealing to see if there are people with better knowledge within the project to comment on the situation and possibly provide a solution. I have discussed the issue on the talk page, but to no avail. Here is a discussion about prior concerns being raised about the issue, you can also see my own contribution here. I am further concerned by the tone and nature of Signedzzz's edit's and am looking for guidance. Please provide some assistance on this issue. Jab843 (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, can anyone help with this article? It's been tagged for notability for over six years, and to a non-specialist, seems to make no sense. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Never heard of them. Mostly redlinks. No attempt to improve it in the six years since its creation. I'd say zap it. Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't it be a line on the IFS page, that the government was technically described as "His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State". We are back to description and (different) name again.PatrickGuinness (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The protests article will overload the 2008–14 Irish financial crisis, and should remain as a separate article. The protests made little difference, the theme was anti-austerity (aren't we all?), and should be recorded as a part of history. Anti-austerity protests has its own "issues".PatrickGuinness (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Er, no, its a coatrack article, with OR to link it. Are they ALL anti-austerity? Are they co-organised? Are they linked by common goals? Are they linked by common priciples? Anti-coruption, anti-austerity, anti-government, anti-globalism and more anti's than I care to type, are not a linear form for a stand alone article, they can be mentioned in the relevant articles with relevant weight to their importance. Murry1975 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Nominated for speed. Only reference a user edited project. Material is already in ROI article. Edit who created also adjust IFS article to link to above. Murry1975 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Support Delete. Noted that it adds no useful information, but that the paragraph on "Formation" uses the historic present style of the source[2] from which it is taken ("This site is run by Soren Swigart and Axel Schudak")[3]; the subsection headed "World War 2" would need cleaning up: "...neutrality was on preservation of Irish sovereignty...", "...at series of meetings ..."; the subsection "Republic of Ireland established" also needs cleanup. Qexigator (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This map should not be called Ptolemys Ireland
This is Polemys IrelandThis is not, but it says it is, (with a lowercase "i" on Ireland too)
My text from the relevant talk page cut and pasted:
Dunum and Domnainn in particular should not be used as they are (I hear somewhere Domnain was not around that time, and I can say factually that Dunum was not only the name of Down, and that Ptolemy did not record it that way. It was the name of many, even then, as recorded by all, and still is, throughout Europe to a lesser degree). It is not the same map at all though it says it is, and the reasons for switching it around and claiming it to be the same thing is not described. So I am inclined to request deletion and replace with the actual map. For instance, I count 10 settlements on Ptolemys map. On this map I count 11, and only four of them the same as Ptolemy, with no explanation.
And I haven't gone over every inch of it, but there are significant differences and omissions. It seems that this map is widely used on early tribes, while Ptolemys original is used only as part of the Irish history template. Let's have more than faith that this is sourced and accurate, or let's use Ptolemy, and describe then any suggested alterations or inaccuracy. I'm a bit uncomfortable challenging this particular map, but it interests me and appears inaccurate, so I want to ask about how it is being done, cheers. ~ R.T.G11:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It's at File talk:Keltoi Tribes.PNG. I agree, it's not a very good map, although "Keltoi Tribes" is probably more of a problem than "Ptolemy's Ireland". Domnainn, Cruithin and Eamhain Macha are not from Ptolemy, and Eblana is placed at Dublin which almost certainly isn't where it was. Your proposed alternative is not much better as it also places Eblana at Dublin, and the shape of the map bears no relation to the shape of the island either in reality or according to Ptolemy's coordinates. See this link to Bill Thayer's site for the text and a map based on it. I'm sure someone with the appropriate software could whip up something similar for Wikipedia. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking further at the "Ptolemy's Ireland and Keltoi Tribes", you're quite right that Dunum is put in the wrong place: from Thayer's version of the map it should be roughly in Laois or Kildare. It includes both Ebdani and Blanii, which are two manuscript variants of the same name (Eblani is the more usual version). Concani and Gangani are also manuscript variants of the same name, and so (I think) are are Usdiae and Vodiae. To clarify my earlier comment, Eamhain Macha, Domnainn and Cruithin are early medieval, and it is very clear that the political geography of Ireland changed greatly between Ptolemy's time and then, and while the Irish can be considered Celtic in the modern sense in that they spoke a Celtic language, we can't call them "Keltoi" in the ancient sense.
A better map is certainly needed. I appear to have made a map of Ptolemy's Irish population groups at Protohistory of Ireland#Ptolemy by adding image labels to a blank map (although I no longer remember how), but it doesn't include the promotories, rivers, towns or islands. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@RTG: Looking at File:Keltoi Tribes.PNG, I see that it was created by User:Setanta Saki, (formerly Caomhan27). If you want to know the rationale behind it, the best way is probably to ask him on his talk page. Looking at what links to it, in almost every case it is used to illustrate an article – usually small – on one of the tribes referred to. It's caption in each case is some variation on "Celtic tribes in Ireland according to Ptolemy". I would recommend that in each case the file be replaced with the Ptolemy's map file; it is by far the more logical illustration. The caption should also be expanded to say, for instance, "The Gangani are shown in the west of the country". Where a tribe does not appear on the map (I don't see the Iverni, for instance) it should be removed. Similarly, in the Brigantes article, it should be moved from it's current location (a list of settlements in England) to a section that actually mentions Ireland, or removed altogether. I've just discovered that the file you have shown is not Ptolemy's map, but was drawn by Wenceslaus Hollar in the 17th century. Ptolemy's map is shown here, although even that says it was published in Rome in 1490, so it's only a copy of the 2nd-century one. Unless a copyright-free image of the real Ptolemy's map can be uploaded, all illutrations should be removed from the articles on which Keltoi_Tribes.png is currently used.
@Nicknack009: the accuracy of Ptolemy's map is of no importance, since the file is only being used to say where Ptolemy said the tribes and settlements were. I would be more concerned about the accuracy of any alternative map, and the reliability of the sources used to create it. Bill Thayer says of himself, "Obviously, I like to think of myself as a guy with no credentials but writing fairly decent stuff." The standard on WP:RS is somewhat higher than that. BTW, to see how you added the labels to the blank map, just click "edit" above it. Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I see that. Don't remember actually doing it, and have evidently forgotten how to use using image labels in the meantime. I based it on Philip Freeman's Ireland and the Classical World, which I believe I still have, so maybe I could work up a better map based on that. In the meantime, I think I'll copy my image-labelled map into relevant articles. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, I don't think anything should be shown in those articles. Ptolemy's Ireland was not shaped like NASA's Ireland, so any placing of the labels on the NASA map is pure guesswork. As far as I'm concerned, nothing at all would be better than guesswork. If a copyright-free image of Ptolemy's map could be uploaded, that would be different. But you can't say Ptolemy put this tribe in this place when in fact he put it somewhere on a crazy geometric shape. Scolaire (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
"Guesswork"? It was based on a reliable source, a contemporary scholar who's done the work of trying to relate Ptolemy's coordinates to the actual territory. Don't go around calling other editors' sourced and cited efforts "guesswork". --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The work of trying to relate Ptolemy's coordinates to the actual territory is precisely that: guesswork. There is no scientific methodology outlined anywhere. The amount of work they've put into it is not a factor. Sorry, I missed the bit where it was based on Philip Freeman's work. As I do not know this work, I cannot comment on methodology. Did Freeman draw a map, and is your map derived from his? If so, then the new template should state that explicitly, instead of just a citation. If not, is it based on co-ordinates provided by Freeman. Again, this should be made explicit in the template. Otherwise, to what extent is it scientific and to what extent guesswork? Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC) – edited 17:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The entire field of ancient history is based on the interpretation of sources by scholars. Or, as Scolaire has unilaterally declared it, "guesswork". That's it, we'll just have to remove all articles on ancient history from Wikipedia.
Tell me something. You have one map, based largely on Ptolemy but not sourced and with a number of obvious flaws. You bring it here for discussion. I point out there's a better one already in use on Wikipedia, based on and cited to a reputable source, and start using it more widely, and you unilaterally declare it worthless and delete it on sight, without discussion. Explain precisely why the "Ptolemy's Ireland and Keltoi Tribes" map merits discussion, but my map doesn't. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you post that before you saw my edit to my previous post? I apologized for the earlier misunderstanding and tried to engage with you on specifics. I am genuinely interested in discussing this and would like to arrive at a solution. Answering my questions would be more conducive to discussion than just ranting. In my first post here I said that all illustrations should be removed from affected articles. I never gave any weight to the other image, and never made any attempt to restore it to articles. It was RTG who first brought it here for discussion, not me. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems I did. Your edit hadn't shown up when I was composing my reply - no idea how I didn't get an edit conflict. Thanks for the apology. And you're right, it wasn't you who brought it here for discussion, and I apologise for getting that wrong. But you still insist on referring to "guesswork", so I will no longer take any part in this conversation. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
A pity. I think the template is usable – not as it is, but with a little work on the legend. There's not much point in me offering suggestions, though, if you refuse to take part in discussion. It will have to remain unusable and unused. Why that one word makes you so angry I can't imagine. I've never seen it on any list of words to avoid. I'm a historian myself, and I can tell you that when you have researched all your sources, it still requires a considerable amount of g*******k to put your theory together. In any event, I didn't mean it to be insulting and I don't see it as insulting so I can't and won't apologise for it. Scolaire (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Dismissing the sourced and cited work of another editor as "guesswork" is not a comment on content, it's an insult. You did not use that sort of language about the creator of the "Ptolemy's Ireland and Keltoi Tribes" map. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The "Keltoi Tribes" map looks like pure guesswork to me. You may characterize such a comment as an insult; that is a matter of opinion and it still doesn't justify a personal attack. Scolaire (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Re-reading your post now, I saw something I hadn't noticed before. Let me repeat, I did not "use that sort of language" about the creator of the Keltoi Tribes map or about you. My observations were about the images themselves, and the questions they raised about how they were created. Scolaire (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
This claims to be an accurate description of Ptolemy, with a set of co ordinates, but it's not a map, it's just a plot. ~ R.T.G21:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the Bill Thayer page that Nicknack linked to above. It seems to be the 1490 Ptolemy map reduced to straight lines. It has the same problem as the images of the map, though: they're all copyright. Maybe if somebody else did a freehand copy of the 1490 map, labelled it appropriately and uploaded it to Wikipedia/Commons that could be used. Alternatively, Nicknack's template could be used if it was made clear on the face of it that it is a modern map, not Ptolemy's map, and that the placing of the tribes was based on scholarly interpretation of Ptolemy's written works. Scolaire (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Tóraí, would you be knowing of a good source for the Keltoi parts, and be able to do something similar on a blank Ireland map from Commons? Or even confirm the one above and correct the title? It would be a good improvement over several articles I think. But that's Ptolemy anyway unless something from his instructions can be had and be different. ~ R.T.G21:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It's the only hit for "ptolemy" on the Maps of Ireland category on Commons, out of a couple hundred. ~ R.T.G21:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, Ptolemy only gave a rough description of location of the different tribes relative to features on his map. These features, such as towns and rivers, he identified with coordinates. I didn't add the tribes to the map I created because it would require speculation on my part.
I think we would need to use a published map, such as the first one above, to locate these tribes. A map like mine or the second one above would require some OR if it was to locate the tribes on it, I believe. --Tóraí (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Would you be able to put it on the proper coordinates on a map showing its position according to Ptolemy? ~ R.T.G23:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You plotted that using coordinates. Those are assumedly coordinates of the actual map, maybe even with similar numberings, so could probably be put on the map in the place Ptolemy said, which is probably not the place of the actual place. I think there are about four maps, 1). a 1467 one, 2). the Torai version, 3). the Torai version superimposed on a map showing both its shape and position in comparision to todays map, and 4). a map of the Keltoi, and maybe even some others in place of 4)., and such a tall order then because it would go for a lot of articles covering a lot of queries,? ~ R.T.G23:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Those 4 maybe with a picture of the earliest version of "Geography" text either Hibernia or earlier would be a set as such could go on a good few articles, ~ R.T.G00:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@RTG: I wasn't suggesting you upload the Bill Thayer map, I was suggesting you upload the 1490 one – this image, which I previously linked to, or another image such as this one, which doesn't have "rootsweb.com" printed on it). This one is in colour. Scolaire (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A 15th-century map of Ireland based on Ptolemy's Geography. The Magnatae are shown in the west of the country
@Scolaire:The colour one is from UCD, even with the brush strokes on it, as a lifelike copy, its copyright is that of the original, i.e, none. I had been thinking of the 1467 one as its date is older and it looks originally coloured, but for no other reason (follow it to Commons and check out the shape of Scotland in the larger map, it nearly touches Holland). You'd really need an accurate translation of the original to make anything more than a preference, ~ R.T.G14:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so there is a file in Commons already which calls itself Ptolemy's Ireland. That's fine. I'll go back to saying what I said originally. In articles on tribes that are on this map it might be added as an illustration if desired. Personally, I don't think it adds anything – in most cases the illustration will be bigger than the article – but if it is to be added it should be small (no bigger than 150px) and It should say exactly what it is. Thus in the Nagnatae article it would be:
[[File:Ptolemy Cosmographia 1467 - Ireland.jpg|thumb|150px|A 15th-century map of Ireland based on [[Geography (Ptolemy)|Ptolemy's Geography]]. The Magnatae are shown in the west of the country]]
As you might have seen in the Signpost this week, there's currently a drive to go through the million 19th century images released by the British Library last year, and identify all the maps, with a view to their being georeferenced by BL volunteers, and then uploaded to Commons early next year. As of Sunday night, over five thousand new maps have been identified, with 26.5% of the target books looked at -- but see the status page for the latest figures, and more information.
A part that may specifically interest this project is
which currently shows pink templated links for 121 Flickr book pages still to be looked at. (Though there are lots of other parts of the world, still to be looked through as well).
Any help looking through these would be very much appreciated -- as well as the maps (and ground plans) for tagging, you may well also find other interesting or useful non-map views that may be worth considering or uploading for articles on different places in Ireland.
Firstly the John Charles McQuaid article is a mess. He really is a huge figure - like it/him or not - in Ireland's 'recent' history, and really deserves a better quality article. There are lots of refs in there, but the structure is very poor, and some of the prose is poor and POV.. I think someone with a bit more experience than me needs to take it in hand.
Secondly, While reading the above article I noticed there was no article for the TV series Radharc, so I created a stub, but it needs some filling out. I will do some of it but any help would be appreciated. Patient12 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
There was a book published some time ago, No Tigers in Africa, about the programme. It would be a useful source, and may be available at the local library or on Ebay. Scolaire (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
We have absolutely nothing on the controversy around the allegations by Mairia Cahill, grand-niece of Joe Cahill, that Sinn Féin/the IRA/Gerry Adams knew of her claim of rape by a leading republican, that she was interrogated by the IRA about the claim, and that the proper authorities were not informed. I asked about including it on the Gerry Adams page, three days ago, but there's not been a single response to date. I could be bold but I'd expect similar results to this if I tried... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!12:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's a sign that WP editors are tired of fake wars between Irish republicans and Irish republican-bashers. If you're really that anxious for an argument, I'll take you on. Adding the ongoing controversy to any article would be recentism. When the dust has settled we will see whether the controversy has had a lasting impact on Sinn Féin, the IRA or Gerry Adams. These things can only be assessed in retrospect. In the meantime, maybe you should be over at Wikinews asking why there's no mention of it there. Scolaire (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Now we're spanning September, all of October and one-third of November, including Dáil debates, allegations of further cover-ups, abusers being moved from NI to Ireland a la the Catholic Church, coverage on Vincent Browne and other TV radio programs... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
So stay cool. When all the fuss is over, maybe in a year, maybe sooner, maybe later, somebody competent will add what is encyclopaedic detail to whatever relevant article(s) it needs to be added to. This is not Wikinews. Neither is it Bastun's or anybody else's blog. You've raised the question here, you've bumped it twice, and nobody is agreeing with you. Let it go. --Scolaire (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Some questions arising here, after the merger of Waterford City and Co. Councils, is Dungarvan still a county town? What is the difference between "county town" and "administrative centre"?Now during purely discussion and trying to find links, myself and an IP editor are being called "difficult", even though no out come has been reached and no major edit (a tag only by the IP) has happened. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Note also that we have the county town article, whose section on Ireland simply lists Waterford as the county town, and is also completely unsourced. I think the root cause is that "county town" isn't formally or legally defined, so can mean either "county town of a traditional county", or "administrative centre of a present council area". If the former, the CT is Waterford; if the latter, we'd have two CTs for the merged entity. We should make clear which sense we intend in each article. The linguistic debate about which usage is "correct" is likely to be fraught and twisty, and would lead us down the path of having to obtain reliable sources using that terminology explicitly, when in practice it's very patchy. 79.97.71.180 (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
On Talk:List of urban areas in the Republic of Ireland by population, a discussion is going on about county town. To my opinion, the discussion is growing more and more vague and into WP:OR. Hot apple is county Waterford, where Dungarvan seems to be the county town but Waterford City is the main town.
I'd strongly prefer not to split the discussion, but I really struggle to see how it's "into OR" to object to a vague, unsourced, contradictory claim (that you repeat above) in the article status quo, and to suggest a recasting of the article that can clearly be sourced. But I do at least agree that more input would be very welcome: otherwise this seems likely to go around in circles indefinitely. 79.97.71.180 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact, this should be the place to discuss this issue, that by now has spread over three articles. By you. And sorry to say so, unless you come up with sources to prove that Waterford is/was the "county town" and that Dungarvan is not any more the "county town", you are just creating drama. The Bannertalk20:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm particularly struggling to see how I'm causing "drama". I've pointed out consistency and sourcing issues with various articles, on those articles' talk pages. (You can hardly dispute that there being such issues, having yourself changed at least one of the articles in response.) I haven't added -- or even proposed adding -- unsourced claims; I haven't removed source-seeking tags; I haven't speedily reverted attempts to improve articles or flag up these issues; I haven't attributed malicious motives to people; I haven't used intemperate edit summaries. Would that everyone involved could say as much. Your claim that I've split the discussion doesn't bear up under any examination. There's a discussion at the original site of the issue. I've posted messages on other affected articles, pointing back to that discussion. What's entirely unhelpful is to insist that ground already covered there be retrod out of context, without addressing any of the material outstanding issues. 79.97.71.180 (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
See also the same page with regard to County Tipperary, where the merged council has two apparent administrative centres and meeting places, and the many related articles claim one, the other, or indeed both as "county town". With not so much as an up-to-date source between them. 79.97.71.180 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The councils' take
As alluded to on an article talk page, I emailed the two counties with multiple administrative centres. From Tipp, I happily have both a response, and the express OK to reproduce it here (minus names, etc):
"Further to your email dated 10th November 2014 in relation to the above matter, I wish to advise as follows;
A number of the authoritative dictionaries define a 'County Town' as "The town in which a county’s affairs are or were administered". By that definition, both Clonmel and Nenagh continue to be the 'county towns' of Tipperary.
I trust that this clarifies the situation for you."
There's a certain logic to that (as it's much the same as I've been saying), but it certainly doesn't speak to any particularly "official" such status, much less going any real way to getting it definitively sourced.
I won't quote the response I got from Waterford in full, because I'm still waiting for a followup saying expressly that I can do so. (There's no confidentiality notice, but normal considerations would still apply.) I think I'm fairly safe, however, in saying that the essence of their reply was to refer to those things we're already noted can be securely sourced (their website; DoE), to wit the location of the corporate address of the new council, and that it works out of both sites. They did not, however, go into the above sort of dictionary exercise, and instead stated that for them county town status was "not really relevant now". 79.97.71.180 (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this is original research, county towns have been around for centuries. Those in Ireland aren't called county towns very much any more, that's all.PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't know what the original question was, nor are it prior published sources. The point is that mr. IP wants Waterford named as county town, but fails to give reliable sources. He just gives a personal interpretation. The Bannertalk23:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, we are all familiar with the concept of original research. What I would like to know is, how much of what is on WP about county towns does not fall under NOR? In the County town article I count 23 citations (one arising from this discussion) for well over 100 counties, some with both current and past county towns. Do fully reliable sources exist for county towns in general, and if not, should we remove all reference in all articles to those that can't be reliably sourced, or should we use common sense, and – yes, I dare invoke the policy – ignore all rules?
Now, the ref added to the County town article here includes the quote, "Dungarvan, which is currently the 'county' town of Waterford County Council". The scare quotes in the source were deliberate, as was the phrasing of the sentence, and there is nothing similar in the rest of the document when referring to eight other county towns. Thus, "the 'county' town of Waterford County Council" is not the same as "the county town of Waterford". To say that one implies the other is...well, it's just OR.
In short, I don't see why any reasonable person should have a problem with saying that both Dungarvan and Waterford have the status of county towns, especially given that the status means very little anyway. Scolaire (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Posting here is entirely proper according to WP:CANVASS. This is a project whose objective is to improve articles about Ireland, rather than promote a specific view. The project includes dozens of articles about terrorism in Northern Ireland and presumably some of the members of the project would know how expert sources describe it. TFD (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
"Asarlaí: thank you, and I think that things are settling down now, so I have no remaining problem with any of this. What is more important than any remaining discussion about canvassing is that I hope that you will see my comments above, made before other editors showed up from the WikiProject, in which I had altered my opinion and, I hope, made some edits to the page that may help address your concerns. As for the WikiProject, it was very strange, from my perspective and in real time, to suddenly have multiple editors show up together, all with the same concerns, and without any apparent reason for that happening. That's where the canvassing policy comes into play. All you had to do was to note, here, that you had posted at the WikiProject, for transparency. Also, I very much stand by my concern that the header you used there, which was The Troubles as "Christian terrorism", used those quote marks in such a way as to indicate that, in your view, it was wrong to classify the The Troubles as Christian terrorism, so in a subtle way, that was not a neutral posting. I fully understand why TFD and Scolaire see the notice as neutral: because they agree with you that the classification is questionable. But that's still one of two sides to this discussion. There are plenty of ways to seek fresh eyes, including WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WT:WikiProject Terrorism or the other WikiProjects at the top of this talk page, which do not include the Ireland project. I asked at the Ireland project page whether anyone would have objected if, instead, I had posted a notice at WT:WikiProject Atheism (which I actually have no intention of doing). Had I done so, however, I could reasonably have expected that editors who are quick to see problems with religion would have come to this discussion and been eager to see The Troubles painted as a religious conflict. Even though, officially, the Ireland project is about improving content about Ireland in a neutral fashion, it's no coincidence that every editor who responded to your post makes a big deal on their user pages about their pride in their Irish identities, and so your post was a subtle way to reach out preferentially to editors who would be predisposed to object to characterizations of Irish conflicts that might seem negative to them. And the irony is that these editors showed up after I had already partly changed my mind and made edits agreeing with you. Síochána. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)"
Tryptofish, please see my reply at the article talkpage. As Scolaire says, I hope we can now draw a line under this and get back to discussing the issues. ~Asarlaí15:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
A series of edits on the Éamonn Ceannt article were done today. They all look pretty kosher, but unfortunately they are not very well referenced, and some of the content is borderline unencyclopaedic. It looks like it may have been taken from the recently published "16 Lives" book. If somebody has the time and resources to check this I would be grateful. Scolaire (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It comes across as pretty naive, but that well reflects Mr Kent/Ceannt himself. For example "After finishing his schooling education he was presented with the opportunity to work for the civil service but turned this position down as he felt he would be working for the British. He went on to secure a job with the clerical staff of the City Treasurer and Estates and Finances office, he was working as an accountant with the Dublin Corporation from 1901-1916."
Well, if somebody would edit it for style, that would be a good thing. There's no doubt the language in the edits is somewhat below the standard we've come to expect on WP. But mainly I'm concerned about verifiability. By all accounts, the "16 Lives" book is no great shakes, but it would count as a reliable source if it was what's being used here. I was kind of hoping somebody would have read the book and be able to say "yes, that checks out." Scolaire (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Another one...
... of the Gaelic warriors has arrived and has started changing English-language place names into Gaelic-language place names. By now, I consider it POV-pushing as (s)he is using rather silly arguments (rarely used Anglicized names, even when those names have 8 times more Google hits than the Gaelic ones) and altering the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles to get the desired result. Help needed. An overview of the edits of user:Gaelmise can be found [5]. In the mean time, I do a step back. The Bannertalk13:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This is hardily an unbiased summary of events, take Baile na hAbhann in Galway for example, the Irish language version is ahead in terms of hits over the English equivalent Ballynahown. Irish version has 200,000 hits, English version has 40,000 and the top page is a town in Westmeath. A more important point is that all Gaeltacht place names are no longer recognized by the state, and as such, official sources will use the Irish version of the place name instead of the anglicization. As for the change to the style guide, correct me if i'm wrong, but these are not rules set in stone. The change I made was done in good faith and intended to improve the guide, if someone disagrees, then they should discuss it, not go off an a rant about 'Gaelic Warriors'. It's fairly obvious that this issue has come up regularly in relation to Galetacht Place names, perhaps you should consider that there is a reasonable discussion to be had on this rather than cancelling any and all changes without debate. Gaelmise (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, though, Gaelmise, Wikipedia uses the common name, not the "official" name. So we have articles at Spiddal, not Spidéal, and at Dingle, not at either Daingean or Daingean Uí Chúis. Ballynahown would indeed seem to be an exception to the general rule that the English name is much more commonly used than the Irish name - probably because TG4 is located there. I doubt there are many more.
Generally the practice on WP would be to discuss a proposed change to a manual of style, rather than altering the guide and then arguing about it afterwards. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!14:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
i am aware of the the common name practice, as I understand it the policy is based on the desirability to have the article title match the most prevalent place name in reliable English-language sources. The fact that the state does not recognize the anglicization of Gaeltacht place names has a significant impact on the name likely to appear in reliable sources in English dealing with that place. One of the most significant sources on information about the Gaeltacht is material produced by or on behalf of the state, these sources use the official name. Given this, there is a debate to be had as to weather it is better to use the Official name or the Anglicization. Perhaps you think more weight should be given to 100 daft.ie listings on google than 1 useful source about the area, but I think that would be foolish. In any case, the blind application of a rule and ranting about those who question its application is not helpfull. Gaelmise (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"As for the change to the style guide, correct me if i'm wrong, but these are not rules set in stone. The change I made was done in good faith and intended to improve the guide, if someone disagrees, then they should discuss it," - Wikipedia is a collaboration and any changes to guides should be done via consensus after discussion not by assuming you are correct and have the right to just go ahead and alter it to justify your own arguments and then say opponents need to discuss it. Also they are not rules, they are guidelines to help. This guideline has worked well for years I see no need for a change. Mabuska(talk)15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
My apologies if I went about it the wrong way, but the article on consensus does say that the best way to achieve consensus is to make an edit and work it out from there. As for the pre-existing guideline 'working well for years' a brief glance at the talk pages on the articles in question shows that its a guideline that has been regularly questioned when it comes to Galetacht place names. I'm not the first to raise this issue, as evidenced by the name of the section. If anything it seems that this has been a contentious issue. Gaelmise (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Unless controversial, then you should discuss it first. Going on the attack, as you did on my talk page, will not help your case. At least to me, it proves that you are not for a friendly and useful collaboration but to promote your point. You preferred to ignore the openings sentence: The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).The Bannertalk16:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Gaelmise, your changes are controversial and need to be discussed in advance. There is a process for requesting page moves - WP:RM - please use that in future and don't just revert other editors when they move a page back to its original location. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!16:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The thing is that this is the English-language wikipedia, and there's a perfectly good Gaelic wikipedia that can be linked on the left side of the page.PatrickGuinness (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That "English-language Wikipedia" is a put-down I've been seeing for many years, and it's meaningless. If a place name such as "Baile na hAbhann" is commonly used in the English language, then it can be used on En-Wikipedia. We don't go to German Wikipedia to read about Berlin or French Wikipedia to read about Lyon. As for Gaeltacht place-names in general, that is a matter for discussion, not for glib one-liners. Scolaire (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's not intended as a put-down, just a reflection of the reality. If you look at the Gaelic page you'll see one footnote which has the name spelt as "Ballynahown" (http://www.fallingrain.com/world/EI/10/Ballynahown.html), which is telling. In pre-GPS days you could always get directions to Ballynahown, everyone around there knew what you meant.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This task has been on the list for manual handling for some months, and the editor who made the nomination is no longer very active. Please would someone from this project help? There are only 44 articles in the category at present. – FayenaticLondon20:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It's complicated, as some candidates (no articles yet), the wives of Irish Jacobites, were of English /French / Spanish / Austrian origin with Irish titles. An inclusive broad brush is best at this stage. For example, if we ever had an article on the wife of my ancestor Arthur Dillon, Count Dillon, she was English-born with an Irish title of countess recognised in France.PatrickGuinness (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added a few more women, mainly Gaelic-Irish, to widen the scope. These women are desperatly under representated, though they made up the bulk of the Irish female nobility. Fergananim (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is nomination for DYK, but it needs to be large enough to be eligible as expanded by fivefold. I hope anyone interested can find sources and then expand it. --George Ho (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I see you may have an interest for The Waterboys' Paul Brown article. The artist requested help on the IRC channel recently to develop this article, and made a copy and paste copyvio draft on the talk page (which has already been taken care of and deleted). As a result of this, I talk to them a bit and got them to post a list of possible sources on the talk page instead. I've copied the WikiProject banners from the band's talk page, and this page will need to have each WikiProject assess their own importance and ratings on the topic. Thank you for your assistance. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
A very large amount of pov and OR material was recently added to this article, more or less claiming that the chronicles are authentic. The article is full of comments such as "A factor in the general resistance to consider evidence with respect to the chronicle was the reports formally here on wiki and elsewhere claiming it to have been disproven. Wiki claims to follow the Darwinian principle of evolution, allowing all equal access to edit content with a view to enable an erosion of inaccuracies out of its pages. Skeptics of the chronicle are invited to add considered content to the section that follows." Anyone know anything about this? Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor is deleting the flags prior to the Lordship of Ireland. His rationale is: "In every single Wikipedia pages (except this one), the image sections of predecessing and sucessing polities would be left empty if it doesn't have an unanimous representation, or doesn't have a representation at all (like in this case). It is a universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia. It is forgivable for users putting disputed flag/coat of arms in the image section, but insisting to type words in that section while that polity doesn't have a flag at all…the name of that polity is rather short so it's possible to fit in those words for this case, but there are also plenty of articles that have long names, it's thus unfeasible to use words as representations, therefore the section should be left blank under universal practice. Pktlaurence". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
I would like editors with some knowledge of the question to have a look at this discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland. The issue is whether to include or omit a statement that the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 did not make "Ireland" the name of the state because that would be in conflict with the constitution. Scolaire (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Can someone help find sources for the draft article Draft:Ag Criost an Siol? A user has requested its restoration, but I think that it'd help if someone familiar with the poem helped look for sources since they said it's a well known liturgical poem in Ireland. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)11:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I need some help. Could someone tell me who I should go to about harrassment on Wikipedia? There is another (almost certainly Irish) Wikipedian who continually reverts any additions I make to Wikipedia articles, even when I give exact references. Just a few days ago, I made a number of, if I say so myself, very informed, accurate and scrupulously referenced additions to the Wikipedia article on Castleblayney. This particular Wikipedian, I noticed today, has removed ALL my additions, reverting them all, even though they all had proper, academic references.
I consider this behavior to be harrassment and I want it stopped. I want an independent adjudicator on Wikipedia to intervene in this long-running dispute. I want all my recent additions to the Castleblayney article to be reinstated in full, as, in this case, I have done absolutely nothing wrong. It is this kind of harassment that gives Wikipedia a bad name, as Jimmy Wales recently alluded to. I need help in this matter, as I don't know what to do or who to turn to. Laggan Boy (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Didnt see this til now. Well for those concerned for an update, I have gone through the Castleblayney article and re-instated the reference material removed some overlinking, and non-notable people for the list, also the entire music section (Laggan Boy didnt add). As for long running, I have engaged with this editor as an IP, then user, and still occasional IP, since shortly after I started editing on here, he has been on longer than I. He has improved vastly, but edits like this still crop up, as does overlinking. The editor has started since the new year to add WP:RS and references, but occasionally drifts back. Murry1975 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I dislike the practice of blanket reverting and then adding back, but there's no rule about it and no grounds for complaint. On the other hand, it is not polite to post a message in a forum like this making a complaint without informing the other party.
There certainly was overlinking. There was also an excessive tendency to add titles, and the refs were not well formatted. Having "Kevin V. Mulligan, The Buildings of Ireland: South Ulster (popularly known as the Pevsner Guide to South Ulster), p. xxx. Yale, London, 2013" in the ref list seventeen times is somewhat over the top. I have fixed that. Scolaire (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Scolaire, do you know what am still crap at on here, doing the multiple refs to one and the like, after nearly four years. The dyslexia just gets the better of me, I try but end up adding in bear URLs mostly. Thanks for that. Murry1975 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I accept fully the comments of Scolaire as regards my references in the Castleblayney article. The reason I went 'OTT' with the references was to make sure that Murry1975 would have absolutely no grounds for reverting my edits. It made no difference. Murry1975 still reverted all my edits to that article. Laggan Boy (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
There's only one way around all this. Laggan Boy is no more. I'll still be knocking about, but in a different guise. I've been harassed out by Murry1975. This is the type of carry on that Jimmy Wales complained about recently. Hence, as Mr Wales pointed out, so few Wikipedians are either female or non-white. Laggan Boy (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
To be honest User:Laggan Boy, User:Murry1975 did reinsert some good information that had been removed for what seems like no real reason. But I wouldn't worry, you just have to learn to be better. I was harassed by a real republican asshole when I started on this site who plagued me but I got the last laugh when they couldn't nitpick my edits anymore. In fact I ended up being given "autopatrolled" status meaning I am trusted enough to create articles without the need for them to be approved by clerks as is the norm. Mabuska(talk)22:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
'Knocking about' as in a different User Name and from a different computer, that's all, Scolaire. Nothing more sinister than that, I can assure you!! Life is too short for this kind of harassment that I am getting from the zealot that is Murry1975!! Life is just too short. Laggan Boy (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It would be really useful if this project could create at least start-level articles (ideally more!) about these topics. They are also completely missing from Wikidata, but I don't have the knowledge about heritage in Ireland to create the articles or fix wikidata (although I could do the latter once the articles exist).
The assertion that there are many fine swimming locations in the Clare Glens is questionable. It's not actully supported by the reference beside it.
You don't need a medium level of fitness for the walks. They are classed as easy walks. The assertion that you need a medium fitness level is not supported by any reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.104.21 (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Over at the above article, the heading "Total population" says "c. 70–80 million worldwide". Can we please make clear the difference between Irish people on the one hand, and people of Irish descent on the other? The actual Irish population is far smaller than the "total population" cited! Fergananim (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches
I note that "incumbents" are being added: President and Taoiseach. Since this is an all-Ireland list and there is a map of the island, we should include the PM of NI. btw - why are "incumbents" listed? - Lugnad (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not all-Ireland: "xxxx in Ireland" articles deal with Ireland, the state. There are corresponding articles for "xxxx in Northern Ireland". Good point about the map, though. That probably ought to be fixed. Scolaire (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There's the wee problem that it covers the whole of Ireland when you go back before Northern Ireland was set up. I don't know how best to get round that. Perhaps since it is a template the picture could change depending on the year? Dmcq (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the various events, many of them are proper to NI. Perhaps we should accept that and rename them to Years in the Island of Ireland? Lugnad (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Plantation of Ulster
I do not understand why a review by Tom Hartley is cited for this article; he is a political figure not a historian. Nor for that matter why a book that plainly had a political purpose ("Ó Snodaigh hoped a shared linguistic heritage would thus improve relations between Northern Ireland's antagonistic sects during "the Troubles.") should be cited at all for this article? As far as possible, should we not stick to solid scholarly work
for articles on historic subjects? Fergananim (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
First, why not open a discussion on the article talk page? Second, if you must raise it elsewhere, it would be polite to leave a link to the article, so people don't have to go off searching for it. Third, if you want a discussion (preferably on the article talk page), you should say what citation you are referring to, how it is being used, and why you object to it (other than you "do not understand why"), and suggest an alternative cite, and alternative wording if you think it desirable. Don't just think out loud on WT:IE and expect other people to go and do all the work for you. Scolaire (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Dave Gallaher nominated at Featured Article Candidates
As the sole Irish Wikipedian at this year's Wikimania, I felt the need to note some of my thoughts on the workshops, discussions, and sessions I attended. The report is here, if anyone is interested I'd love to hear any thoughts you might have on the ideas I have noted for potential use by Wikimedia Community Ireland. Thanks! Smirkybec (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some other input into Niall of the Nine Hostages. Another editor, Wjhonson (talk·contribs), keeps asking for a cite that Irish annals other than the Annals of the Four Masters are sources for Niall. I've given him a cite to a relevant secondary source, Byrne's Irish Kings and High-Kings, which devotes a whole chapter to the question of Niall's historicity and the sources for it. He's demanded detailed cites of primary sources, and I've explained to him in the talk why that's inappropriate - that would be original research and way too detailed for a footnote in the lede, and most of the references to Niall in the annals are indirect, to his sons, but give us valuable information on the man himself, his dates and context. I've linked examples. But he just keeps putting the citation tag back in. Somebody help! --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Your concept of the requirements to meet WP:OR is false. Citing primary sources is not original research. It is simply research. You did not cite any pages within your source, merely citing the entire book as your source. Citing books, when specific citations are requested is improper. Removing my request for a specific citation is also improper since you refuse to make any specific citation.Wjhonson (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You could also address the issue by making these specific citations in the body of the text. But I believe citing a vague "Irish annals" in the lead would be a false way to force the question of his historicity. It begs the question, it appeals to false authority since the point of his historicity is the very point being glossed over.Wjhonson (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
"You did not cite any pages within your source, merely citing the entire book as your source." That's not true. The cite was not to a whole book, but to a chapter. And I told you that yesterday. I've caught you either knowingly lying or not reading my comments. I see no reason to respond to you further. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Request for WikiProject comment on subjective edit on sensitive article
An editor, Gob Lofa, is intent on misquoting a source to present speculation as fact. Outside input would be appreciated to see whether their edit or my amendment better reflects the source and should be used. Discussion is at Talk:RUC_Special_Branch. Obviously due to the topic of the article it is sensitive, even if only recently created by Gob Lofa, hence the need for accurate quoting/paraphrasing. Mabuska(talk)11:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly. I have no problem with further sub-categorising by time periods. I do have a problem with any editor who tries to pretend a Sinn Féin MP wasn't a Sinn Féin MP at all. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Being an MP is quite an achievement for a SF politician, and most don't make it that far; you're demoting him, essentially. By the way, your unilateral attempt to impose your own understanding of what constitutes a SF MP on the category page (without consensus) is subject to the same 1:RR rule as all Troubles-related articles, and it's pretty disingenuous of you to suggest that Provisional IRA members and veteran SF politicians have nothing to do with the Troubles. I suggest you revert yourself, unless you want people to think you're an arrogant boor who believes he can flaunt Wikipedia rules to his heart's content. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we stay on the substantial issue at hand, please? It's not helpful or productive to throw around 1RR warnings and the like. The easiest solution here would be just to break Sinn Fein MPs down into Sinn Fein MPs (pre-1983) and Sinn Fein MPs 1983-. Of course, the first category could be broken down further according to time period. Would you both agree with that? Valenciano (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that Gob Lofa seems on a mission to de factor claim that Provisional Sinn Fein, is Sinn Fein historically. I'm open to two articles or a clear split in the article between them (per Valenciano) ----SnowdedTALK21:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
"unless you want people to think you're an arrogant boor who believes he can flaunt Wikipedia rules to his heart's content." the hypocrisy is outstanding here. On topic, at the pointed out talk page. Mabuska(talk)22:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No question; given the double standard being applied to 1RR breaches, the hypocrisy is far surpassing its usual levels here. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Something I asked at Talk:Caílte mac Rónáin, but now that I think of it, it seems more of a wikiproject question: It would help at this (and other such) articles to have a pronunciation guide. This given name seems to vary between /kweel-teh/ and /kyle-chuh/, depending on specific modern Hiberno-English dialect, with some intermediate forms, like /keel-chuh/ (the one I would have expected, at least for the Caoilte spelling, and perhaps /kyle-chuh/ for the Caílte spelling, from the Irish class I took once upon a time). Some source somewhere probably has an idea how it was pronounced in Old Irish. The family name seem to even out toward "Roh-nine", though I've also heard something approximating "Roh-nawin", and what I've been taught would lean toward that because of the accent on the á). Does WP:IRELAND have any kind of consistent approach to this sort of thing? Giving one exact pronunciation seems dicey, but giving three or more for each spelling would be overkill. Is it reasonable to provide a traditional Gaeltacht, vs Dublin standardized school-book, pronunciation? — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, as you identify, the problem is dialect... there are very distinct differences between the various ones. I think Munster Irish is the "official" version taught in schools (rather than a "Dublin" Irish) but don't quote me on it. I'd agree with your interpretations on this example - the á would give an "aw" sound rather than a "-ine" sound. 21:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict)It would be good if articles on people and events that are in Irish had a phonetic pronunciation given afterwards, for to ordinary English speakers, they aren't the easiest things in the world to pronounce without some knowledge of Irish pronunciation. Mabuska(talk)21:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, the "official" version is the Caighdeán Oifigiúil. According to that article, "many aspects of the Caighdeán are essentially those of Connacht Irish", so Munster Irish is not the "official" version ("Dublin Irish" is usually used to refer to a bastardisation of the language by people with thick Dublin accents, and I would dispute the contention in the article that it is used to refer to the Caighdeán). At any rate, this does not solve the problem of pronunciation, as the Caighdeán only regulates spelling and grammar, and pronunciation differs from one region to another. Even if it were agreed that a single dialect (e.g. Connemara) be used for pronunciation guides, it would take somebody with both knowledge and dedication to change it in all the articles where pronunciation is given, not to mention policing it to stop people changing it to their own preferred pronunciation. Scolaire (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an invitation to anyone so inclined to take a look at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home article. A good deal of work has been done recently by an editor whose viewpoint would appear to be somewhat transparent, and possibly less than well-informed. Righteous indignation without a view to underlying causes for what was probably not an isolated situation is all too similar to tabloid journalism. I leave this to those who may be interested. Mannanan51 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd absolutely agree that more eyes from this side of the Atlantic are needed. A couple of Americans, who don't seem to understand that per capita headage payments per inmate from the state to private religious institutions should result in adequate levels of care, medication and nutrition, could certainly turn an article into a whitewashing exercise... They may not even be aware that 1947 data from the National Archives showed that, during the preceding twelve months, the death rate of children in Bon Secours was almost twice that of some other mother and baby homes, for example. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!08:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The reference does not cite David Quinn. It cites AP. I've looked at AP itself but cannot find a direct quote. However, other websites also carry the retraction / apology. Use them if Mr. Quinn offends you. The lack of balance stems from the fact that the article relies heavily on the initial reports that have now been retracted by AP. It should, at the very least, exclude all material tainted by this (i.e. that remains covered by the AP retraction). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The AP correction (not retraction) covers baptisms (that the children had not been batpised; and RC church teaching on baptism); and the claim that 800 bodies were found dumped in a septic tank. The article is very clear that this was what had initially been reported; that it was based on speculation never made by Corless; and that "She [Corless] said the skeletons found in 1975 had most likely been in the septic tank,[3] but added that only 204 of the babies had died when the septic tank was in use, saying it "seemed impossible" that all of them could have been "put in a working sewage tank". So I think it's actually reasonably balanced. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So the speculation of one person is allowed to go unchecked? The fact that it may not be corroborated by the evidence is not to get equal weighting? As it stands, the article is weighted in favour of sensationalism, not sober assessment of the weight of evidence. Hence the need for balance from the other side. It is not the job of wiki to act as judge in the matter. However, where reasonable, sourced, verifiable opposing views are present, it is the job of wiki to give them due weight. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
"However, where reasonable, sourced, verifiable opposing views are present, it is the job of wiki to give them due weight." - absolutley. The article does that - even to the extent of quoting from opinion pieces in Catholic newspapers. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The scales is weighed down by sensationalism on one side and a single instance of a retraction by the author of the same sensationalism on the other. Is that balance or due weight? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the Library Ireland version but it is not always easy to find exactly what you want but this is a searchable pdf if you download it for local lookup. ww2censor (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
According to Irish Comics Wiki, it is Timothy Healy, Thomas Sexton (?) and Justin McCarthy. Tim Healy is definitely right. Contrary to what his article says, John Dillon stayed aloof in 1891, while Healy was the most vicious of Parnell's critics. There's a picture of Sexton here if you want to compare it to the face in the cartoon. Scolaire (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Scolaire. I appear to have written that at the Irish Comics Wiki, so this is research I've done before and forgotten about. I've found some images of a young Tim Healy and it does look like him. Can't find any of Thomas Sexton, but I suppose I'll take my own word for it! --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I mistyped there - I meant I couldn't find any of Sexton at the right age. He's much younger in the image you linked, and has more hair, than in the cartoon. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the middle head looks more like Parnell himself than anybody else. Here is another cartoon with the three, but Sexton is more easily recognisable from the image I linked to than he is in your one. Scolaire (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no use bringing this up here if you don't link to the discussion (or provide diffs if there's no talk page discussion). Scolaire (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in Laurel Lodged's !vote, do they say to make Category:Members of the 1st Dáil a sub-category of Category:Sinn Féin MPs. Snappy (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I totally disagree with having Members of the 1st Dáil a sub-category of Sinn Féin MPs. However, I still think one of the two of you might have the decency to point to the place where you are each stating your case. If it's only edit summaries – and at this point I expect it is – why are you not discussing it on the category talk page? WikiProject Ireland is not just a place to come and say "tell him he's wrong". Scolaire (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
My position has been misrepresented by Gob Lofa. My vote was "Keep as a container category for all SF MPs and at the same time create Category:Sinn Féin MPs for Northern Irish constituencies and by period categories if necessary". Nothing in this authorises making Category:Members of the 1st Dáil a sub-category of Category:Sinn Féin MPs. For the record, I oppose such a proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could help with the article Paddywhackery. It's currently up for deletion and I'm finding evidence that this is a fairly widely used term in academic texts and whatnot, enough to where this would likely merit a full article on Wikipedia rather than a mention on Wikiquote. I'm still undecided on that last part, but it does seem to be potentially notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)04:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I came across Oliver Byrne while working off Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. I tried to cleanup the whatever links I could find, but some of the older The Irish Times articles require a subscription to access. So, I'm wondering if anyone in WP:IE can access them and either fix the bare URLs themselves or post them on Talk:Oliver Byrne for me. Also, I tried cleaning up the article a bit, but I'm not too familiar with Byrne or Irish soccer. The article sort of reads like a rap sheet by focusing on his legal problems, so I think it could do with a bit of reorganizing, balancing and expanding. Byrne seems to have been notable enough and successful enough so that there should be more to add about his accomplishments in Irish soccer or his personal life. I just can't seem to find sources that I can access. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The Irish Times subscription model is a problem, so I try to use other Irish papers instead. Here are a few links I found: RTE, Shelbourne FC, Irish Times and Daily Mirror at Highbeam. Also try a Google news search. For someone who is described as one of the most colorful and controversial characters in Irish football the article certainly does not convey that. I would tend to remove all the year sections and combine them into one. It would read better if edited. I don't know soccer so really can't help you. ww2censor (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
1. The short-lived autonomous region of the United Kingdom established on 3 May 1921 and dissolved on 6 December 1922, superseded by the Irish Free State.
Help by someone with access to Irish print sources, namely back issues of the Irish Sunday Independent's Life Magazine supplement, would be appreciated at Talk:Aidan Gillen#Marital status. A second set of eyes looking at the issues even without access to such sources couldn't hurt either. Huon (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's nice. I think it's just another unwieldy template of the kind that clutters up too many articles nowadays. See Battle of Cluain Immorrais where the template is several times longer than the 1½-line article, or Battle of Connor where it has to collapsed because it's one of three templates in a short article. There's nothing in this template that couldn't just go into a category.
As to time period, it is not accurate to talk about "Normans" after 1204, when the Duchy of Normandy was conquered by France. The Battle of Bouvines (1214), Saintonge War (1242), War of Saint-Sardos (1324) and Hundred Years' War (1337–1453) were all fought between the English and the French. Wars and battles in Ireland in the same period were fought between the native Irish and the English, or the Anglo-Irish. This possibly means (I haven't checked) that most or all of the articles in that template need to be edited to say "English" or "Anglo-Irish" instead of "Norman".
I suggest, therefore, that a category be created for wars/battles between, say, 1169 and 1406, with a suitable title, and the template be deleted. Scolaire (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ought the definite article in 'the Troubles' be capitalised mid-sentence, i.e. 'part of The Troubles'? Categories use both options. Gob Lofa (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
It's usually not capitalised in articles. Links tend to be written as "...during the [[The Troubles|Troubles]]". I've seen it changed from uppercase to lowercase but never the other way round. Scolaire (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought that it is a proper name, not just Troubles. As it is always referenced as 'The Troubles' in common speak then capitalisation would be the norm. However I am happy to go with a majority view if only to encourage Gob Lofa to bring issues here that are not specific to one article. ----SnowdedTALK17:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the recent history, Snowded, there have been very few contributions on this talk page other than editors starting threads to draw attention to one thing or another. We're a long way from the days when every question engendered a lengthy discussion with a dozen participants. If one user says A, another user says he can live with A, and the only other participant is the one who asked the question, and doesn't dispute A, I think you can take it that A is the consensus. By the by, where do you get the contention that the article is "always" capitalised "in common speak"? Leaving aside the obvious objection that you cannot capitalise in speech, I find it in lowercase in nearly every instance when searching either Google (including CAIN, the usual go-to for Troubles facts) or Google Books, except obviously when beginning a sentence, not to mention ten out of ten instances in The Troubles itself. Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
No one wants endless discussion but we are a long way from that. When I checked Google Scholar earlier all lower case seems more common. Given a choice between 'The Troubles', 'the troubles' and 'the Troubles' I would suggest the first two are better and a good compromise would be all lower case ----SnowdedTALK19:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd go for 'the Troubles'. It is a name as well as a description the 'the' is always put in but just looks wrong when capitalized. Dmcq (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in a couple of debates about whether or not politicans who received criminal convictions before their political careers ought to be included in the politicians-convicted-of-crimes categories. I've no strong opinion on the matter but amn't happy with the disparity I've seen. A list of US politicians with criminal convictions stipulates they committed their crimes while in office. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's the old terrorist v freedom fighter debate. One side (the establishment) saw certain acts as crimes, and the other (the paramilitariesand their related political parties) saw them as political acts. Certainly, seven or eight years ago, there was a convention that they were not treated as either. The acts would be described as killings or robberies, and if a person was convicted and jailed for the act, they would be categorised as Category:Prisoners and detainees of Northern Ireland or a sub-cat of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict. This applied equally to republicans, loyalists and members of the security forces. I agree that Category:Politicians convicted of crimes should be only for people who committed their crimes while in office. The sub-cats for politicians convicted of corruption, embezzlement and fraud make it clear that that was what was in the minds of the people who created it. There has been a tendency, and I don't know when it started, to start adding people imprisoned as part of a conflict. Nelson Mandela, for instance, is in Category:South African politicians convicted of crimes. I think this is wrong. How to stop it, though, is another question. I think maybe it needs to be discussed in a wider forum than this one. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Not much traffic there. Alternatively, we could have different categories for politicians whose convictions preceded their political careers and those whose didn't, although it's hard to think of titles that aren't cumbersome. Gob Lofa (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
When I said "a wider forum", I meant something more like Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I think it's important to engage with the people who concern themselves with categories in general before we try to come up with alternative proposals. Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Stopped by the Eamon de Valera talk page, and would like to offer my opinion. I believe that there are two separate labels under discussion: crimes committed for personal gain versus crimes committed in the name of a belief; and acts recognized as crimes by one government but not by another government. I think that very careful word choice has the potential to reduce conflict. For instance: "De Valera was a criminal" is overly broad, and correlates/equates his activities with embezzlement or sexual assault. "De Valera was guilty of treason" is more accurate but still somewhat subjective. "The British government declared de Valera to be guilty of treason" is less ambiguous still. "In 1916 the British government convicted de Valera of treason against the Crown and sentenced him to death." is clear and in context (it's also not in the body of the article). Calling de Valera a "criminal" is very subjective; hasn't the label "terrorist" fallen into disfavor for that reason? Wouldn't that rationale apply here? TreacherousWays (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
RfC - use of "Monarch" in Officholder Information Boxes for Northern Irish politicians
Yes, I can fully understand and sympathise with your frustration that years of work on an article can be undone because of a discussion on a page that you weren't even aware of. Having said that, I've had a look at the discussion and I feel that it was above board and the decision was a good one. The question of properly advertising the discussion was touched on, and it was pointed out that it would not be feasible to put a notice on the talk page of every affected article. That WikiProject was the only logical place to centralise discussion, and it seems that it was also advertised at WP:CENT. There was a lot of input into the discussion; it wasn't just a small group of like-minded editors taking it upon themselves to dictate to the rest of the community. There was a clear consensus to delete, and a clear rationale for doing so: "that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people." This is well illustrated by one of the examples you gave: History of the Jews in Ireland (version with gallery). I personally think it was laughable to have Daniel Day-Lewis in there. His mother may have been Jewish, but that doesn't in any way make him part of the history of Jews in Ireland. By the way, the closing statement also said that the decision "also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups...because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well." There is no reason why this could not also apply to List of converts to Christianity from Islam. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Category:Gaelic-Irish nations and dynasties
Surely this category could be simplified into two, distinct categories? Namely, Irish nations, and Gaelic-Irish dynasties? The former were earlier historic folk whose name ended in -raige. The latter were groups prefixed as Ui. By the way, I note that Template:Campaignbox Irish-Norman wars does not seem to have been edited as proposed. Anyone? Fergananim (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an edit dispute on the Fianna Fáil article on the issue as to if the lead is biased in favor or non biased as it is using the political party´s own sources, as well as cluttered, in my opinion the tone is certainly not impartial. Would appreciate some input, as there appears to be no consensus for the addition or removal. Discussion can be found here at the end Talk:Fianna Fáil#LeadTyrsóg (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I would be interested to hear other interested editors' thoughts on what the province articles (Munster, Leinster, etc) should be "about".
From my perspective, these articles should cover topics that are specifically associated with the titular subject.
For example, certain sporting organisations (notably rugby union, the GAA and perhaps association football) organise themselves on a provincial basis - hence it possibly makes sense for the province articles to reflect this.
In a similar vein, in a historical and geopolitical context, it makes sense to me that (for example) the Leinster article has a history section that reflects a geo-political cohesion (for example drawing together the Laighin peoples, Kingdom of Leinster, the concept of The Pale, etc). And other historical content that is specifically relevant to a discussion on the province.
I can equally understand the value in dealing with provincial variances of language (like Munster Irish, Ulster Irish, etc) in the encompassing regional article - as per WP:SS.
And I can make peace with the "lists of media outlets" in some of the provincial articles - given that at least some of the regional media outlets organise and market themselves on a provincial basis.
What I am struggling with however are some of the more random and WP:INDISCRIMINATE tables and lists in some of the articles. For example, the Munster article has a LARGE table of wind farms in Munster. Why? Are wind farms organised or managed on a provincial basis? If not, then why are we arranging them on that basis on this project? It wouldn't seem to be in keeping with relevant guidelines on scope, context and reflecting the real world.
Similarly the Leinster article has a (random?) list of "Cultural Venues". Leaving aside the lack of any clear inclusion criteria or cites, what value or relevance does this have do we think? We might as well have a list of cathedrals in Leinster? (Such a thing might even make slightly more sense - given that the dioceses loosely follow the provincial borders). But venues? Other than in the Leinster article, where ever have the 3Arena, Navan Arts Centre and Lambert Puppet Theatre ever appeared together? The WP:LISTN guidelines suggest that list contents should be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". If nobody else is bundling the 3Arena with the Navan Arts Centre, then why are we?
Would love to hear other thoughts before I take a stab at hopefully decluttering some of the random/indiscriminate "lists of stuff that just happens to be in Leinster" and which has very little context under the titular provincial subjects. </end of rant> Guliolopez (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It's sufficient that such things appear in the relevant county. Pretending that a supra-county entity exists is just wrong. While we have Eurostat regions, they don't involve themselves in such matters. If they did, that that would be the home for them, not the provinces. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The provinces should contain the relevant information both historical and modern, but I do lean to Laurel Lodgeds view that the provinces are comparably out date in terms of referencing and the way information is given. As for the editor, they tend to use adverts and promotional material as sources, some of the other links I have tried to follow are incorrect urls. Some of the edits are odd and totally incorrect. Murry1975 (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
OK. As not all parties will have seen this discussion, I will open a thread on each relevant article before (possibly in turn) addressing some of the points raised. Guliolopez (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal to split off most of the Geology of Ireland into its own article. Actually someone already moved it all and then replaced it but left the split off sitting there. The main article requires a decent synopsis because decimating that section might put its featured article status in question. So maybe you can assist in making sure this works out well. ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
"Some opposition" means everyone else but you. "Thoughts" would be to stop using it, as there is no consensus for it. Open an RfC and be done with it. Snappy (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Why wouldn't an RfC be helpful? Anyway, the polity article is one badly written and badly sourced paragraph. Polity is another word for state. Just use the word 'state' and stop your whinging. Snappy (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Polity is more than a word for state; it also covers sub-state bodies, e.g. the constituent countries of the UK. This makes it useful for describing the political entities in Ireland accurately and neutrally, issues we've had problems with in the past. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"for describing the political entities in Ireland accurately and neutrally", one is a sovereign state one is a bit harder to explain, and using the word polity with it would require further explanation. This added to the fact that the polity definition for NI has changed since the start of its existence, the 1922 polity differs from the 1973 polity and again for the modern polity, makes using the word, well non-encyclopedic. The only place I could see it being used is on the NI page itself, as in various ways of describing NI and that would need a be sourced and cited. Murry1975 (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't make a lot of sense, Murry. They're both polities, including the ROI. The UK and ROI are different kinds of states; do you feel the need to spell out their differences every time they're mentioned? What exactly do you mean by 'non-encyclopedic'? Gob Lofa (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That makes even less sense. I can't think of any better collective term for the political entities created by the partition of Ireland; can you? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't sound to me like a good choice of words for straightforward description. Have you a reasonable secondary source that uses it in this context? Seeing it like that might get me to like it better. Otherwise if there is no good source and people opposed to it, well it just would be wrong to put it in. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
By context, do you mean to refer to both political entities? Why do you say it's not a good choice when there are no comparable alternatives? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources are one thing, but is there consensus among editors to use this term. Hence, the suggestion that you should open a Request for Consensus in the appropriate place. Snappy (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not so much concerned about editors using the term as with them attempting to prevent me using it. If you believe's it's inappropriate of me to raise an Ireland-related issue here, please start a new section for that discussion. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand. "...them attempting to prevent me using it" - this would be the no consensus for using this term. If you continue to push this term without consensus, then it will continue to be reverted. Feel free to start your own RfC. Snappy (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
If there's a total ban on the use of this term despite it having its own article, please point me toward where this consensus developed. I'm advocating the use of the term with my arguments here; please don't characterise that as "pushing" "without consensus". You'd do better to take Laurel's admonishment on board. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, 'polity' gets used. Rarely, usually in academic articles, possibly government circles. That doesn't make it a more appropriate term to use than 'state', which requires no explanation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!23:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
You still don't get it, do you? You are proposing to use this term. No-one currently agrees with you, therefore you have to get consensus to use it on Wikipedia. Until you get that consensus, it can't be used. P.S Laurel Lodged is an numpty, Snappy is short for Snappy Dresser! Snappy (talk)
We need an article on the term as we are an encyclopedia, but the fact the word exists does not mean it has to be used. This has been discussed and todate there is no support for its use as it is not a common word and would require explanation which will not help people on the article concerned. Otherwise Snappy I suggest not responding to Gob Lofa in kind it doesn't help. Gob Lofa its good that you brought it here rather than continuing attempts to insert the term in articles against consensus. But you should really place a notice on the article where the discussion took place so other editors are aware. ----SnowdedTALK05:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well it looks like a term that is used in sources. It however strikes me as a rather nondescript term, if one looks on google then it seems to be used in some churches more as in ecclesiastical polity. So I guess this is a use by use question rather than a general one. I'd avoid it if there is a common more descriptive term which can be used. That has to be better than saying what seems to be the equivalent of thingamajig social-political group. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we have to do anything. You asked for a suitable synonym. I gave you one that is used in reliable sources and accepted by the Wikipedia community. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't ask did we have to. I asked is it acceptable to refer to sub-state polities, e.g. NI and Scotland, as states. If this is accepted as you say, can you show us where? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Put whatever spin on it you like. I am not concerned with Scotland. It is accepted explicitly as a term for NI by Snappy and Bastun, above, and now by me, and implicitly by everybody else who opposes "polity", i.e. everybody in this discussion but you. Do not demand any more answers to tangential questions from me. It is uncivil and disruptive, and I won't be drawn. Scolaire (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
You mistake my tone; to ask a question is not to demand an answer. I'm concerned that referring to NI as a state implies independence, a wrong-footing that would take a bit more explanation to correct than a simple, linked polity. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
States need not be independent. That's why people talk about independent states or sovereign states. It is a bit of a problem how to refer to Northern Ireland without someone complaining about terminology. Using another uncommon term though strikes me as bordering on [24]. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
For states in the European context, and particularly the British/Irish one, that's not the case. The term isn't that uncommon (I read it in the newspaper last week) and neatly dodges the main bugbear of NI terminology, that of neutrality. Gob Lofa (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In the last couple of cases I've seen this being stuck in and removed it has been completely unnecessary. 'Northern Ireland' is quite good enough instead of 'Northern Ireland polity'. 'state as a Dominion' says everything and better than 'polity as a Dominion' for the Irish Free State. I see you also want to say Ireland declared independence from Great Britain and Ireland. The sources just say from Britain of Great Britain. Actually most of the sources say just Britain rather than Great Britain and i haven't seen any saying the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Put in a link to the state if you like but this sort of thing just makes the text clunky and bureaucratic rather than readable. Dmcq (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I've just had to revert yet another insertion by Gob Lofa, this time as a pipe link. All of these despite no support anywhere for his use of the term. Maybe time to request a restriction at ANI if it carries on. ----SnowdedTALK11:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
He didn't add "polity". In this edit he linked the word "state" to State (polity) ("State" is a dab page). It's still an unnecessary link, and I would have reverted it on that ground, but it's not a continuation of his previous behaviour. Scolaire (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with that, I misread the edit. I kept it out anyway as it linked to Dominion two words later which is actually useful rather than what is basically a common dictionary word. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Fully 25% of the citations are now dead links in Dave Fanning though there were many more. Can anyone assist in fixing them, finding archive links or replacing them with working links? I've done all I can for now. ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Was Wogan "Irish" or "Irish-British"? Have a think about it and if you have an opinion visit Talk:Terry Wogan as we need more people with an understanding of this sort of issue. --John (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I've heard some Irish-origin people in Britain call themselves Hiberno-English (as distinct from Anglo-Irish). But the dialect is Hiberno-English already :) Why not Irish-British? If he'd stayed in Ireland he'd have been a stub in wikipedia.78.16.86.228 (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
If anybody knows anything about Pegida Ireland (I don't), the article needs either a drastic revision or a drastic pruning. It's like somebody's blog at the moment. Scolaire (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I have removed some the scare/drama qoutes. Also removed the unnamed Labour councilor qoute, someone saying someone else said something is not encyclopedic. Murry1975 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually there really are no details about the group itself, the prose is essentially about WP:ONEEVENT not about the group. There is not even any verification the group was even inaugurated. On that basis it's hardly even worth a mention until there are some decent prose supported by sources. ww2censor (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Never heard of it. I had to Google it. Google says it's English slang, and Croydon is in England, so why WikiProject Ireland? Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Can the Northern Ireland Troubles be seen as a colonial conflict?
Hi, can I interest anybody in contributing to a national edit-a-thon/contest for Wales in April, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. You can win up to £200 worth of Amazon vouchers and books of your choice for entering the contest. The idea is that Amazon vouchers and books can then be used by people to buy/have discount off more books and produce more articles for wikipedia. The scoreboard will be kept here. However, if contests and prize aren't your cup of tea you're very welcome to participate in the edit-athon throughout the month. Everything will count and be added to a list at the bottom. We have a number of missing listed buildings identified and a core list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon/Core articles. Already we have about 30 people interested but it would be great to see more get involved and producing content and really show what can be achieved in a month.The point of it is getting some of the core articles up to decent status and an overall improvement in quality. So if you generally work on military history or trains or whatever and you spot something which might interest you please consider working on it within the next six weeks! There is also a physical edit-athon at the National Library of Wales on April 22, see this for details. If it's a success there's no reason why a similar thing couldn't be run by somebody here for Ireland or a county of Ireland.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Gob Lofa and 'polity': proposals
Proposal 1 - what term to use
The term province, which is what Northern Ireland in all reality is, is the most suitable and appropriate term for Northern Ireland, which easily meets WP:COMMONNAME criteria. Then again so do "region", "country", "statelet", "state", or "part" depending on context. Rarely is the term polity used and as evidenced it is controversial.
If a description is not needed then we shouldn't add one in. If a description is needed and one is already being used before Gob Lofa started imposing "polity" in place of it, then we should use the term that was used before Gob Lofa's edit. If that term is something problematic like "Ulster", "six-counties", "the North", then either "province", "region", "country", or "state" should be used at whichever editors discretion. A simple and flexible solution? Mabuska(talk)23:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I think this proposal is over-elaborate. Suffice it to say that in none of the instances (that I have seen) where Gob Lofa has added the word "polity" has it been shown that the addition of "polity" or a synonym is necessary or even desirable. Discussion of what might be used in some hypothetical future instance is pointless. We might as well discuss whether a situation might arise when we should use "mutton" instead of "lamb". Scolaire (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That is why I said Scolaire if one is not needed then we don't add one in. In most circumstances a descriptive term for NI isn't needed at all if worded right so that NI is all that needs to be stated. Mabuska(talk)17:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Many of the more recent additions of polity to articles by Gob Lofa (which are now reverted) is where a description of Northern Ireland isn't even needed so Gob Lofa's claims of "NPOV" lack justification, and is simply POV pushing.
The fact at least nine different editors of all different political persuasions have reverted instances of Gob Lofa's insistence on using "polity" and in light of the above discussion clearly shows that Gob Lofa has no consensus and is unlikely to get one for the usage of the term.
As such I would propose that in light of their edit-warring tendency that any future attempts by Gob Lofa to impose the term "polity" without an actual consensus from this WikiProject should result in a community ban on Gob Lofa being imposed in regards to edits about the status/description of Northern Ireland. Whilst they seem to in the past week or so stopped enforcing their viewpoint on articles, no doubt due to the amount of heat at the moment over it, it wouldn't be the first time there was a lull before they re-embarked to impose their POV. Mabuska(talk)23:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
While I do think that if Gob Lofa continues on this campaign despite a clear consensus against it, it will be necessary to look for a topic-ban, I don't think that this project is the place to be discussing it. If and when the time comes it will have to be taken up at ANI or ANEW. --Scolaire (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Scolaire is right. You can't do it here, projects have no jurisdiction concerning bans. As for terminology, they can recommend but not impose. Doug Wellertalk11:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I wish they would give up the idea of righting the wrongs of the world rather and just saying what the main sources say. Too many editors do that and it is wearying. Wikipedia isn't the place to push ones own ideas of how things should be. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems that polity is the wrong word for NI, at least, as there are so many polities in those 6 counties. West Clare, now that's a polity, unless you differentiated between locals, tourists and permanent tourists?78.16.86.228 (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Obviously ANI is the place for a topic-ban request to be made. I didn't make my reasoning clear enough. What I mean by a "community ban" is essentially that a request for a topic-ban when made has the backing of all those agreed to it whether they are actively editing at the time or not. This means that an editor who currently can't spend too much time on Wikipedia like myself has a say on the matter if it arises when I am not around for a few weeks or whatever and the discussion is over by time I get back. It will also highlight to any admins that the issue is serious enough to need dealt with. Mabuska(talk)18:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The diffs were useful, and could be referred to if a situation arose in the future, but I don't think you could take what somebody says and present it as that person's view weeks later, when the circumstances might be different. I certainly wouldn't want something I said weeks before to be presented as my position when I'm not there. Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...
The Wikipedia Library
Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.
There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}21:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
James Connolly a British anti–World War I activist?
Hello Ireland experts. The above article is poorly sourced. I wanted to improve it, but I know nothing about the sport of hurling. Is this a notable player? I understand that Wikipedia has articles mainly about professional athletes or those on national teams. I added a couple of references, but if the subject isn't notable I don't want to put any more work into it only to have it taken to AfD.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Asking for people to get involved in producing for this. See the article list at the bottom. If it's a success I'll consider running a similar one for Ireland. If you want to see a similar thing happen to Ireland and mass improvement to your content contribute to Wales for a few weeks!♦ Dr. Blofeld19:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
An AFD discussion is taking place here on whether it is a notable thing that two referendums on the same day when each referendum already has its own article. There also seems to be some confusion around whether or not a referendum is an election. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Old Belvedere Cricket Club
Would someone from WikiProject Ireland mind taking a look at Old Belvedere Cricket Club and assess it. It's been recently expanded a bit so it probably no longer qualifies as a stub. The article still probably needs a bit of cleanup and there are some ongoing discussions about various things on the article's talk page, so any comments from some experienced in these kinds of articles would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I was looking at some Irish town names and noticed that the Irish name was "An tAonach" in the text part of the page, then above the map it was "an tAonach". See Nenagh
Is there any difference between "An tAonach" and "an tAonach" ?
When alphabetizing a list of Irish town names, they’ll appear in different locations during the computer sorting.
I'm not too sure but I think it should be spelt "An" in both instances considering it is part of the name and in both cases of its use it's the first word, which following grammer rules is capitalised. If you look at this PDF, "An" is used when the word is the first word, but "an" when it is part of a sentence/middle of a name. Mabuska(talk)00:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks much better now. He was self-described as a count, and no more than that, and our historians never checked. A bit like de Valera's parents' marriage certificate! In so much of Irish history, seek and ye shall NOT find.78.19.216.87 (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
British colonial campaigns
In Template talk:British colonial campaigns there is an extensive discussion on whether to consider Ireland a former British colony and include in the template various Ireland-related conflicts and The Troubles. Could members of this Project offer some perspective to this debate?
I am personally not involved in the discussion, but I was surprised that this Project was not involved on a debate of Ireland's political status and history. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Central Bank of Ireland page
The Central Bank of Ireland article really does not conform to WP:NPOV. The criticism section in particular has just become a list of items, some spurious, some false but all with an unencyclopedic tone. Can anyone help to get the article into shape? IRL246 (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Red Dublin post boxes photo request
Ten post boxes in Dublin have/are being painted red for the 1916 Rising celebrations. Can some of our Dublin-based wikipedians please photograph them before they revert to green. BTW, from photos I see online, several of the boxes are not old enough to have been extant in 1916, specifically all those with the P7T logo such as this one. The locations are at Grafton Street, the Royal College of Surgeons, St Stephen’s Green, Liberty Hall, Dún Laoghaire pier, Mount Street, Haddington Road, the Four Courts, O’Connell Street and the GPO. Please add them to the commons category: c:Category:Red 1916 centenary post boxes in Ireland. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Do we know when they will revert? I might be able to take photos of the other nine over the next few days. You're right on some of the boxes being the wrong age, but I think it was the locations that took precedent, rather than the age of the extant postbox. Smirkybec (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea when they will revert to green and you are correct they were apparently chosen for their location and not their age. Thanks in advance. ww2censor (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I saw the May date when I was trying to find better location information, thanks! I will definitely be able to get the Northumberland and Haddington Road ones on Monday, and I will try to swing up by the Four Courts/Church Street that day too. The only one that is a stretch for me would be Dún Laoghaire, so I might put a call out to my mates to see if I can get someone else to get it. I always try to keep an eye on Wikipedia requested photographs in County Dublin, so feel free to alert me to any other photos I might be able to help with. Smirkybec (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Over the past few years, I've utilised OSGB OpenData create an extensive series of maps for Great Britain. More recently, OSI and OSNI have released similar data and I intend to use that to create a similar series for Ireland. The data is significantly higher quality than that previously used (compare map to right with this), which makes sub-national maps possible.
The main series in GB is at county-scale and is used to illustrate location-in-county, as in Coningsby or Corby. The same approach throughout Ireland seems sensible to me (eg to show Dungarvan in Co Waterford or Warrenpoint in Co Down) and would give a significant improvement over showing them in the whole country.
I've uploaded a location map for County Down, see to right. Template:Infobox UK place is now using it, so it can be seen in articles about Co Down places. However, the 6 counties may not be best choice to subdivide Northern Ireland, and in some ways the 11 districts may be better. I can easily produce maps based on the local government districts (and will do so for Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon to provide direct comparison with the Co Down map). I can see three options:
Show within Northern Ireland as a whole
Show within the county
Show within the district
My personal opinion is the counties are best unit to use, as this way the maps better reflect the prose of the articles. The prose in turn reflects how places in Northern Ireland are described - if asked where Dromore was, you'd almost certainly reply with "County Down". One exception for places within Belfast. In those cases, the map should show location within the city area, not Armagh or Down.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant notify this WikiProject of the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#Northern_Ireland_maps, but having it here is just as good. I favour maintaining the very long established status quo of using the councils in the location maps. They are the modern administrative divisions used for Northern Ireland and have been for decades. I can't disagree that colloquially counties are still used in various fields. I personally would prefer a combination of the council maps and Nilfanion's new design. Mabuska(talk)14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm disappointed as well, it would be good to see an active cadre of Irish editors around the place :) I intend to get this sorted ASAP, and after that I will start to generate a series of maps for the counties in the Republic (What's best for Co Dublin?). With any luck that will make people interested in Northern Ireland too.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
To be honest there was until a few months ago a very active cadre of Irish editors, however the more mature and sensible ones who would of discussed such a non-controversial matter have disappeared, largely due to editors who only focus on pushing POV on controversial matters. What's best for County Dublin? I would also say the modern administrative units as like in Northern Ireland, the traditional counties now longer have any official status. Mabuska(talk)23:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
One advantage in County Dublin is the modern units are strictly contained within the traditional one, so its less problematic having both options available. With any luck when the Republic maps are available, this will attract interest on the Northern Irish too...--Nilfanion (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
So I have been monitoring this wikipedia project for a while now. I have noticed the fact that we are rushing things to much. The main article Dublin isn't even a good article. Ireland the main article isn't even a featured article! We should take a step back here get Dublin to a good article we need to take baby steps to get the best quality of quality of articles here. I am Irish myself and would love to see Ireland and Dublin become a featured article but lets keep this at a normal pace not rushed. CnocBrideMC (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I've started a new initiative, the Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in with whatever area of the British Isles or subject that they work on. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Pascal Stil
Is anyone from WP:IE familiar with Pascal Stil? The primary claim for notability appears to be that he is the only person ever to represent Ireland in international draughts. I've tried to find something supporting this in reliable sources, but have been unable to so far; moreover, the sources cited in the article are not in my opinion sufficient for establishing notability. If anyone has any suggests or comments on where to find better sourcing or whether Stil is notable, feel free to add them to Talk:Pascal Stil#Notability. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Posting here rather than WikiProject Saints because it was 50/50 and this page seems more active. Did this person exist? If so, why no Wikipedia article? Or was he invented because they needed more saints to name schools after? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'd greatly appreciate any assistance in getting this article Central Bank of Ireland into shape. It has been the subject of a lot of biased, excessive material by one user who persistently edits the page only to include POV material. This is usually 'supported' by links to media articles which do not actually support the edits to the article. This leads to a weighty article, with an undue emphasis on personal opinion. IRL246 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The article is in okay shape at the moment. It might be no harm to have people watching it, though, in case the crazy editing starts again. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
After 3 years of holding the photo competition Wiki Loves Monuments, Wikimedia Community Ireland are holding a writing competition to improve the coverage of Ireland's built heritage on Wikipedia and Vicipéid. There are prizes to be won as well! I'm sure there are a few people around here who would be interested in taking part? Smirkybec (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
50,000th Irish article assessment & Auto assessments opt-in request?
Do we want to add this project for auto assessment, which is only on an opt-in basis, performed by User:BU RoBOT/autoassess? Basically, if an article has already has a class-rating assessment for another project, this project will inherit that class-rating assessment for any articles as yet unassessed. It does not affect the importance-rating which is project specific. BTW, we are just about to hit the 50,000th assessment; in July 2007 we had just 1044 assessed articles. We can always use more active assessors, so if you have to time and inclination head over to the Assessment page to review the basics and/or please make contact if you need some advise. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Done Sources updated. :-)) Thanks a bunch! --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 21:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
Tóraí, would you be knowing of a good source for the Keltoi parts, and be able to do something similar on a blank Ireland map from Commons? Or even confirm the one above and correct the title? It would be a good improvement over several articles I think. But that's Ptolemy anyway unless something from his instructions can be had and be different. ~ R.T.G 21:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:Pan Celtic Festival has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Scolaire (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
-112767_(25446634714).jpg){kind=link}
.svg)
