Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Synger

Hi. With the encouragement of SeoR (talk · contribs) and ww2censor (talk · contribs) I have done a lot of work on the Synge Street CBS article. I think it is close to GA level and I would like to think that it may be possible for it to become the first Irish school article to achieve that status. But I have a few questions:

1. Is that a legitmate aspiration?
2. Is there anything systemic against it?
3. What is needed to get it there?
4. Is it worth submitting for GA Review?

Any comments or suggestions welcome? Fob.schools (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• It needed a redirect from Synger, stated to be its colloquial name, so I've made one. Wondered about a dab page as there's a possibly redlinkable person of the surname but decided redirect OK for now. I'm not Irish and don't know the significance of Bunscoil Synge Street, which appears in the infobox but not in the text. I've made a redirect from it on the basis that it's presumably an alternative name, though I don't see it on the school website, but if it's significant it should probably get a mention in the text, whether just in the lead as the Irish language name or somewhere within the history section if it was the earlier name. Should there also be a redirect from Synge Street Christian Brothers School, or is the CBS absolutely never expanded? I don't know whether the GA process looks at the infrastructure of incoming redirects, but it should do.(OK, I'm a bit of a redirect geek!) PamD 10:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• And there's an apostrophe in "boys' school": I've fixed it in the lead, haven't checked for any other occurrences. PamD 10:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Pam. It would be highly unusual to expend CBS fully, I'd have thought. I'll check some of the other CBS articles to see. Bunscoil Synge Street is the name of the primary school listed here. It probably needs to be referenced in the article. I'll do that. Thanks again. Fob.schools (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see the primary school's website here but it makes no mention of the senior school, beyond the connection that they are both Edmund Rice Schools. Any connection needs to be clarified. PamD 13:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fob.schools, and well done on all the improvements to the Synger article. Sorry for not coming back on your question re. GA, it was a busy RL moment, and I wanted to answer carefully. It's actually a little tricky to say, as every reviewer has their own interpretation, but briefly, my take:

1. Is that a legitmate aspiration? Absolutely!
2. Is there anything systemic against it? No. Schools can qualify, and Synge St., with its colourful history, definitely qualifies.
3. What is needed to get it there? The big one, I'll reply further below.
4. Is it worth submitting for GA Review? Not yet, but submit soon, as there is a queue for review(ers)...

So, what's needed? Well, I think you've touched one issue with PamD above, something I mentioned before. That's clarity on what the article is about, and how to deal with related entities. The slightly organic way that Synge St. developed, the base school, secondary development, related primaries - it's fine to have it all in the article (the primaries would not be notable enough for their own articles, I think), but the main topic should be clear, and the status of related entities also. For the rest, I see no issues with criteria #4-#6, but the lede will need a little more work, the body a quick review of "words to watch" and layout / flow to avoid time loss later, and then a review of the breadth vs depth question. I'd suggest a pre-review by a non-involved member of WP Ireland with some experience (Britishfinance has had a good run in GA acceptance, for example\, in recent times), and then go for it - the queue can take months these days, so we can all contribute while waiting for the review. And then I think any remaining issues can be resolved in-review, and it should be very do-able. SeoR (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You certainly have the makings of a GA article there. The #1 thing is that every sentence/list item can be explicitly verified and referenced. If a GA reviewer sees that you have that, and the article gives reasonable coverage to the topic, then it will attract their attention. However, if they feel that a scan of the article shows gaps in referencing, or words/phrases that look unencyclopedic, then it can sit in the queue for a longer time. There will always be plenty of edits to clean up for format/MOS etc, but if they feel the core content is not fully referenced, then it will often get ignored. Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fob.schools: I've moved, resized and/or repositioned several images to especially avoid sandwiching, overlinking and pushing into headers as much as possible. Personally I would reduce the image captions and possibly even remove the "part of Synge Street CBS" as that seems redundant to the prose. The notable people listed is probably way too long so maybe you could make 2 or even 3 columns instead of a single long list but remember the laptop screen size many people use these days. The gallery of selected notables is rather redundant and only acts as decoration. I would get rid of it as readers can alway just click on a notable name if so inclined. Otherwise good work, well done though I am sure the GA will give you more advise or maybe just criticism. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ww2censor Thanks for this - the notable people list is already showing as multicolumn on my screen. Are you seeing a single column? Fob.schools (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Fob.schools: yes, I was getting 1 column. The reason is there were no parameters set for the "div col" template. I've now given them parameters and I think it should be much better now and more compact. I've also separate out the 3 lists and while they shows up as a single column in the Wikipedia app on my iPhone, they display as 2 columns on my 13" laptop. If you have a wider screen, such as 25" perhaps you will get 3 columns. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Is forcing a specific column width a good idea/recommended practice? I would have thought that allowing the browser make those decisions is a better strategy? Fob.schools (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd consider getting rid of the photos of the former pupils. We already have them listed, and having some photos pushes the narrative that we think some are more important. Additionally when the screen resizes with the current images they start wrapping in a not pretty way. Also wondering about the small font on the notable pupils list. Not a fan of having to squint to make them out. Having them regular text size doesn't actually take up much more space and looks more in line with other articles. Although considering the number it may be better to just pull the list into a separate article where we could also have multiple photos as that would be the point of that article. Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

St Stephen's Green

You're going to be sick of seeing my questions at this rate, but I noticed something and I'm not sure how to proceed! The article on St Stephen's Green at the moment is entirely about the park, but I would like to write about the square of buildings - particularly focusing on the loss of the Georgian buildings in the 20th century and now the demolition of a lot of those 20th century buildings since. I don't know how intricate this would be, but what are people's thoughts on how best to proceed? My first thought was to have an article for each side of the square (North, South, East and West). Casey's book The Buildings of Dublin appears to list every single numbered building on the square so there might be enough detail/history for this, but I'm open to other suggestions - is there a better way to disambiguate? Thanks again! Smirkybec (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Great to have lively discussions. And OK, first up, just passing by, so briefly - a very interesting problem. I have a feeling that while four additional articles could be technically justified (legally they are four distinct streets), this is not quite in keeping with the spirit of things. But two articles, St Stephen's Green (streets) and St Stephen's Green Park... maybe? I'd still be inclined to start by splitting the current article into Park, and Streets, the latter into four sub-sections, and calve-off new articles if and when volume justifies. It will be very interesting to hear other views. SeoR (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI, Archiseek has articles about 5 of the green's buildings. ww2censor (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, discussion is good! Personally I'd take a conservative approach. The current article isn't long, so I'd continue to use it as the main article. Two main sections, park and streets, then subsections for the streets, then split them off to separate articles for each street, if and when warranted. A lot of what you'd be writing about, e.g., demolition of Georgian buildings, would be common to all four sides, wouldn't it? (Maybe not the east side?) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have my own biases relative to that article. But, personally (and as noted by SeoR) I think the park (the "green" part) is the primary topic. Certainly I imagine the park (the "green") is what many think when they hear "Stephen's Green". (As opposed to the surrounding streetscape, or its Luas stop or the shopping centre.) I'm not sure how it might be achieved, but I'd be wary of trying to deal with the park and its surrounding streets (addresses/buildings/conservation/lack-thereof/etc) all in one article. Happy to see how it progresses. But I'd imagine a split will come sooner rather than later. And it might be worth thinking about what that might look like. Otherwise, in honesty, the St Stephen's Green#Notable addresses section could perhaps be reworked into something a bit more structured. And some new content added or linked from there. And, if it get's unwieldy, we can split it off. (Otherwise, in terms of a place to cover the "loss of the Georgian buildings in the 20th century", I would note that we already have a Development and preservation in Dublin article. Which could cover this. And section-linked from the article on the green. Otherwise, in terms of "every single numbered building on the square", while I appreciate that nobody was/is actually suggesting it, please (please) let's not get anywhere near to a street directory. Pretty please :) Guliolopez (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, Guliolopez - but what's your position on street directories? :-D Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As WP:SPLIT suggests, it's better to actually get it to a "too long" state before splitting, & there's a way to go before that. I think the park could remain primary, with the plain title, and perhaps St Stephen's Green (streets) for them. Johnbod (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much everyone! I will edit the existing page and maybe tweak the lead to mention the square of buildings as well? Guliolopez I certainly won't do into the blow by blow on the houses/buildings in Casey, you can get an idea of the detail I'm thinking of for them from the article I created last night on Beresford Place, as I didn't go into detail on the interiors or some of the other intricacies there. I have been trying to add *some* inline citations to the article on Georgian Dublin, and I'd imagine that some of the information on the redevelopments/controversy would make more sense there than in the main St Stephen's Green article. I was thinking of something along the lines of the paragraph in Hume Street, Dublin would suffice for the main article? Smirkybec (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Osteraufstand - Dublin - Barrikade.jpg

Can anyone identify this location? Also this one File:Osteraufstand - Dublin - britisches Militär.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Irish Volunteers barricade Townsend Street, Dublin, to slow down the advance of troops, during the Easter Rising. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
• British Regulars sniping from behind a barricade of empty beer casks near the quays in Dublin during the 1916 Easter Rising. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

@Ww2censor: Taken from the metadata at the bottom of the File page on Commons. ~ Ablaze (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I must have been half asleep to miss those. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolved

Biased article on 'Northern Ireland fiscal deficit'

There is no article on the 2 TRILLION UK fiscal deficit, of course, but someone has written a very one-sided article on Northern Ireland fiscal deficit and another biased article on Welsh fiscal deficit which I've now tried to rebalance. The article on the Northern Ireland fiscal deficit needs taking down or totally revamped. A new section could be added: how that deficit will be lowered when the purse strings are taken from the hands of the UK government. John Jones (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

John Jones. That is actually a decent article and a topic that few really understand. The UK deficit of 2 trn is only due to the pandemic (normally a small fraction of that). The NI deficit is still only a small fraction of the normal UK economy (not a major drag, although it is a drag), but it would be a more material part of the Irish economy - enough to make any unification a financially painful event, unless, additional synergies/financial benefits could be realized. However, the topic is encyclopedic and useful to readers. Britishfinance (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've tidied up the NI & Welsh articles. There was not that much bias as far as I could see. Mainly factual stuff. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Dublin Gates et al.

Hi all, two things I've noticed on my travels:

I stumbled upon the list article List of Dublin Gates recently when chasing up some detail on Wormwood Gate (mostly as the name intrigued me!) I was just wondering, given that it is a list article, can I expand out some of the detail on each of the gates or create individual articles for them, or is there another option?

I'm also a little bemused by the article Streets and squares in Dublin when List of streets and squares in Dublin also exists. I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of the article, and it doesn't seem to receive a whole lot of attention either in edits or page views, but the list does get a bit more traffic (excuse the pun!) The inclusion of sections on Dublin 1 to 4 looks to be starting to duplicate the content of the list too. My feeling would be a merge at this point, but I'm not 100% sure. Be interested to hear what people think! (P.S. St Stephen's Green and Pat Wallace are still waiting patiently on my to do lists ;) ) Smirkybec (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Funny, never ran across that Gates list. Nice, and a good base for a whole set of articles - after all, while it is perfectly OK for such lists to contain some non-linked items, ultimately some of the items should really link to articles. I think it could begin by converting to a table, with some basic data per gate, and then over time those on which enough information exists could become full articles. The other two I have met. The List of Streets and Squares is an important tool, and the article... well, it's a bit fuzzy, and some of the points could be included on the List, but I think there may be enough, taking in the Wide Streets, the Commrs of Paving, etc., in passing too, to keep the article, with the list linked from it. SeoR (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Great re. Stephens Green and Pat Wallace, and meantime I was surprised now, checking an addition to an artile which linked a prominent journalist / commentator, to find a redlink, so I think this may be another area which needs coverage rebalancing (we are under-covered on academics and scientists, especially female figures, as well as journalists, and artists, while over-covered on sports figures and politicians, at least). How goes the Monopoly board? SeoR (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Great! I might start with making the gates into a table, as I have a copy of McCready's book on Dublin place names, which has the location, dates and names variations for all of them.

Actually, now that I say that about the streets article, I have some info on the 20th century road widening from both McDonald's books but also from the Casey book on the architecture of Dublin, so I might be able to add some sources and tighten up those sections. I have Constantia Maxwell's book on Georgian Dublin waiting to be read as well, which should help with the Wide Streets, but also the main article on Georgian Dublin. I just have to laugh at Windsor Avenue being given a red link, that's my neck of the woods and there is not a whole lot to be said about it other than Joyce lived on it very briefly in his youth - which given how much the Joyce family moved, is not saying much.

You're preaching to the choir on getting more women in Ireland on to Wikipedia! I'm always happy to help out where I can on that front. The Monopoly project is slow, and I keep getting distracted by streets and buildings that are not on the 1973 board! It's frustrating, as there is not a whole lot more to be said about North Earl Street or Store Street, some of the places are perhaps not as rich in history as you'd hope. I did do a fly-by of Busáras, but there is definitely a lot more that can be said about the architectural appraisal etc. Thanks again for the advice! Smirkybec (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Irish cricket lists

Hi everyone. Hope you all are well. If anyone you have some time then please give your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds. Thanks. Störm (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Order of St Patrick

I have nominated Order of St Patrick for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Milltown Malbay (Miltown?)

At the Talk page, a couple of people have asked if the article title should be "Miltown", single L. Seems reasonable: sources for the "Milltown" spelling include logainm (which has Miltown as an alternative spelling) and OpenStreetMap. Otherwise, "Miltown" seems to predominate. Declangi (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"The Place-Names of County Wicklow"

Today I got an email list from a Dublin collectable's dealer who has a first come first served list with the 7 volumes of Liam Price's "The Place-Names of County Wicklow". Really useful for county toponymy and lots of interesting history. If you are interested, just email me and I'll pass on the list, and hope the lot is still available. Only €16 (+€2 +postage): in 1988 I paid IR£32 for my set!! ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Shorter infoboxes for ministers

Following a discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Test cases using subterm and suboffice fields for cabinet/committee posts, I've begun abbreviating the infobox for ministers and ministers of state. I have my own before and after examples here, following testcases for American and Canadian politicians created by Connormah.

The rationale is that infoboxes are meant to be neat summaries of the article and the individual, rather than showing detailed political succession, which is available on the linked ministerial pages. At the moment, some infoboxes go down the full length of the article, and in the case of some ministers of state who moved around departments, are noticeably longer than the body of the article. Predecessor/Successor boxes are relevant for top-level positions. Precise dates of entry into ministerial office is also relevant for an incumbent minister. In the case of ministers of state, the changing nature of their roles and responsibilities make succession awkward to account for succinctly. Listing departments for ministers of state also usefully shows when they serve in multiple departments, e.g. Damien English.

I'll be doing these in a very piecemeal way over the coming months while working on other WP projects, rather than a wholesale series of edits over a few days, so welcome any thoughts to what works best. My current model is:

• Taoiseach or Tánaiste fields to be left as is.
• One incumbent cabinet position to be left as is (that includes Taoiseach or Tánaiste, so I've listed Varadkar's current ministerial post only in the summary list)
• Then all ministerial posts listed in a group
• Then all junior ministerial departments listed in a group.

—Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. If the issue is infobox length, the use Collapsed sections for certain offices. I'm not sure if following US offices is suitable for the Irish system. As we follow the Westminster system, the UK would be a more suitable role model, and I don't see any evidence of use there. I don't see any reason why not to include full dates plus predecessor and successor, it's only 3 lines of info. If you want to trim it, I would suggest removing the 'Taoiseach' line, which is not really needed. As for Ministers of State, well they are different and this proposal could work for them. Spleodrach (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The infoboxes aren't supposed to be neat summaries, they're supposed to present information. Presenting less information doesn't seem like an improvement. I agree that Taoiseach could be removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes they are – see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Number 57 08:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the proposal. Infoboxes of particularly long-tenured politicians can spiral into walls of text. It's not so much about more or less information as it is how concisely the information is delivered. I think the office of Taoiseach and Tanaiste should be kept separate because of the importance of those offices, but for politicians who have held several ministries, this is a good method of displaying the information that's more concise than the alternative. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Canada is a parliamentary system though, and it's also being used for Israeli ministers, another parliamentary system (examples in the linked discussion for the Officeholder Infobox itself above, e.g. Tzachi Hanegbi, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer). That discussion dates from February 2021 only, so it's recent enough as an innovation. It's not so much the length, as what information is the interested reader going to want to know at a glance when they are on Micheál Martin's or Frances Fitzgerald's pages. More likely a summary of ministerial positions, rather than also who held each of their positions before and after them. The succession boxes at the end of the page have that information in any case. I do think this proposal works particularly well for Ministers of State, which is where I started, before considering that it should work just as well for government ministers. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A further comment. I think collapsed infoboxes are worse than the status quo ante. With a goal of clear presentation of pertinent information, it's not good that certain of the older positions would be hidden by default. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Might we proceed with Ministers of State at least? As Spleodrach said, they are different, and for a number of reasons I think the current approach doesn't work for them. Take my Damien English testcase, which identifies both of his current departments, and each of his previous departments. As Number 57 mentioned, Infoboxes are meant to give information at a glance, rather being comprehensive, so the Wikipedia Manual of Style would lean towards adoption of this generally, but I'm not planning to make any changes to government ministers based on this limited discussion. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that. They are not actual ministers legally, nor members of Government, not even "super-juniors", and their roles tend to change, and their actual functions, even by their own accounts, vary from material to "who's that?", so I think we should down-weight the long info-trails. All data can be within the body text anyway, and we're really trying not to do CV's. SeoR (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Iveagh Gardens How is it supposed to work when a Minister of State is assigned to two or more government departments? Spleodrach (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Spleodrach I actually think this is a great example of why it works well for them, it shows the simultaneous assignment to multiple departemts. See the examples I have for Damien English or Aodhán Ó Ríordáin. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Roderic O'Gorman

An RFC has been opened at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on 'Should a subheading in the article Roderic O'Gorman contain the wording "and harassment by far-right activists"? Proponents contend it is an accurate summary of the contents of the section and of events themselves, while critics argue the inclusion of the wording in the subheading is not neutral in tone. Please read the rest of the talk page for further context.'

Contributions welcome. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Living President of Ireland‎s and Taoiseach images

Do we really need the redundant duplicate images of the living presidents and Taoiseach as added by Extended Cut to these two articles recently? Their images are already featured in the tables of all such office holders. I see little purpose in cluttering up the articles with additional duplicate image when they are already in the articles. The prose, that they are living, is surely sufficient, so we don't need them just for decoration as they are not pertinent. After all we are an encyclopædia and not a picture book. In fact from this user's contributions this seems to be their current modus operandi. ww2censor (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I don't see what those galleries add. The "living former presidents" gallery/table (on the President of Ireland‎ article) immediately follows a similar "former presidents" gallery/table (in which the exact same information and images appear). The second table/gallery/content is therefore entirely redundant. And also falls foul of WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:USEPROSE and other guidelines. I'd personally support the removal of both galleries on those (and content duplication) grounds. Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of similar articles contain galleries of living former office-holders, so it has been nothing more than an attempt on my part to, so to say, standardize the two articles in this regard. Surely, it is not that terrible (or "cluttering") to create a gallery with a few larger portraits, particularly, when it can help readers easily identify living former office-holders should they be interested in finding it out. --Extended Cut (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Extended Cut.

• RE: "[allow readers] identify living former office-holders should they be interested". Readers can already do this. The President of Ireland#List of presidents of Ireland table/matrix/gallery already has birth and death information. Making it very easy to identify those that are still alive.
• RE: "vast majority of similar articles contain galleries of living former office-holders". I have not looked at the "vast majority of similar articles" but I would expect that, while consistency is a laudable goal, consistency (over clarity) is not. I note, for example, that while the President of the United States has a list of living former office-holders section, it DOES NOT have a "list former office-holders". And so the "living" sub-set is not duplicating or redundant in that context. "Consistency" should be taken in context.

My recommendation/thoughts remain the same. That the information conveyed in the "living former Irish presidents" gallery/table is entirely redundant to the information already conveyed in the "former Irish presidents" gallery/table. A consistency goal should not override a clarity goal. Guliolopez (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

How about making it a drop down list/gallery?--Extended Cut (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Eh...? You mean a collapsible table/list/gallery? What value would that add? Why would we add information (that is already in the article), and then "hide it" again? What would the purpose of that be? Guliolopez (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A drop down list merely still duplicates what is already available, so is still redundant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. These two specific articles have the details available. Some other articles which you have added similar information to don't always already have the information and/or images you are adding. ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the two "galleries of living former office holders". As the content of both is entirely redundant to the information already contained in the "galleries of former office holders". Including the same image/name/date information. Which includes information identifying those that are "living". (Consistency is a fine goal. But it is counter-productive when it is applied inconsistently. If other articles need information on "living former office holders" then that's fine. The two articles in question already contain that information.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight in Irish Rebellion of 1798 article

Hello. Input into a discussion about undue weight in a section about the legacy of the Irish Rebellion of 1798 would be welcome - see Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1798#Undue Weight Tag. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Eddie Hobbs

Eddie Hobbs has been tagged as having multiple issues since September 2017. There are many claims that have been tagged as needing citations - the "Early Career" section has no citations. Is there anyone who is more familiar with the subject who can add sources or provide sources? Autarch (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

New IRA

I've recently created a article draft for the New IRA. Feel free to contribute to it. Charles Essie (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Flag of Northern Ireland

There currently is a discussion going on if Template:Country data Northern Ireland should use the Ulster Banner as the default flag for Northern Ireland. Only two other users replied, it would be nice to have a little more feedback from local users. --Fippe (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Longford

A discussion has again been raised by Crouch, Swale at Talk:Longford (disambiguation)#Requested move 8 May 2021 to move the Longford article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Highest railway in Ireland?

If you know the answer, make sure to add it to relevant wiki pages, especially to List of highest railways by country. Thanks! Zach (Talk) 21:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zacharie Grossen: The Pomeroy railway station has an uncited claim. Due to the existing of flagging at List of highest railways by country I am recusing from touching this but you or elseone are welcome to do so. Should I come across in passing alternative claims I shall post them here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you thing the Mallow–Tralee line would be a good candidate for the highest in the Republic of Ireland? According to Google Earth it reaches almost the same elevation (>500 ft). Zach (Talk) 18:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Another discussion about the flag of Northern Ireland

Talk:Comparison of alphabetic country codes#Northern Ireland flag. FDW777 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion notice

An article that members of this project may be interested in, Irish socialist volunteers in the Spanish Civil War, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going >>here<<, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Recognising editors working on Irish content

Hi all! As you might know, I work for the local Irish affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation - Wikimedia Community Ireland. Part of our mission is to support all editors in Ireland, and to represent the unique challenges and issues we might face on various Wikimedia projects, as well as encouraging more people in Ireland to edit!

To that end Antiqueight did a bit of digging on what barnstars or other on-Wiki awards are out there that we could give to people working on improving, deepening, and widening the coverage of Irish content on Wikipedia. First of all, she discovered the The Ireland Barnstar of National Merit, which has only been used a handful of times. She has also created this Irish barnstar:

	The Irish Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work on Irish topics...

Are these something that the WikiProject would be interested in using - in particular to welcome or recognise new and active editors who are making a difference to Irish content? Does anyone have any thoughts? If this is something we'd like to start using, do we want to come up with rough criteria, particularly for the National Merit barnstar? The WikiProject Women writers has the "Mary Wollstonecraft Award" they give out, so there is precedent for such Project based recognition. Smirkybec (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen a few around for other "nationalities"/national-interest topics, so nice to have an Irish one, too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bastun! Should I document it somewhere, so that people can find it and/or use it? I can ask around to see where other WikiProjects houses these things, and perhaps record those who have received them and when? Smirkybec (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good, thanks Smirkybec and Antiqueight. I like the simple, clean design. SeoR (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on how other WikiProjects have done it, I created this page for the award: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Awards. Feel free to add, and dole out the award! Pinging Antiqueight to cast on eye over your creation :) Smirkybec (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Dáil Éireann listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Dáil Éireann to be moved to Dáil. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Andrew Doyle listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Andrew Doyle to be moved to Andrew Doyle (politician). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Letterkenny

There is a move discussion at Talk:Letterkenny (disambiguation) that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Declangi (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Seamus Heaney has been blanked for copyright reasons

- see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 May 27 Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Received request to merge the Connolly Column article into the Irish socialist volunteers in the Spanish Civil War article on 13 May 2021. Discuss it >>>HERE<<<. Input welcome. Thank you, GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Seamus Heaney

Eyes needed here. Page has been blanked pending a copyright investigation; may potentially be deleting, requiring a rewrite from scratch. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This seems crazy, without any advance notice or discussion. The article has been around a long time, and is a well-read one, and much-edited. Is this part of some broader study? SeoR (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Listowel

There is a move discussion at Talk:Listowel that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Declangi (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Irish DYKs and International Museums Day

I spotted an interesting proposition over on the WikiProject Museums talk page about getting some museums included in the DYKs for International Museums Day next week. I have volunteered to try and expand the article on the NMI in Collins Barracks over the weekend (though this may be too big an ask given the turn around?) SeoR is going to take a look at MoLi, and Ceoil thought I should raise the idea more generally here. We've noted the absence of Pat Wallace, but a number of the former directors of the NMI are still missing, and it might be worth looking at some of the directors of other large institutions? The List of museums in the Republic of Ireland still has quite a number of red links, and gets the occasional edit to update the status of more local museums/heritage centres, but I suspect a number of these could be notable less for the museum and perhaps more for the building they are housed in? The Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos campaign is coming up, and it might be something that Wikimedia Community Ireland could try raise broader awareness about - but getting pictures of local museums, libraries, galleries and archives is one area we could highlight? In the past I found myself relying on Geograph pictures for museum articles, and they are not always the most inspiring. Anyway, probably a bit rambly, but hopefully it makes a bit of sense! Smirkybec (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

To second Smirkybec; my suggestions is that this drive may (being very optimistic here) lead to a burst of new IRL related articles or GAs in the following week, and it would be beneficial to have some sort of sub-page were knowledgeable editors could chime in and improve. It might be hard to keep track of otherwise, while not having a central place would lead some to feel isolated and not part of anything. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a number of books that I can use to improve the various articles of the National Museum of Ireland, including The Story of Irish Museums by Marie Burke, which also covers a number of others like the NLI, NGI and the Chester Beatty. If others would like to come in an mention articles that they think could do with a bit of TLC to those that might be low hanging fruit for some GAs, that would be great. I can revisit the National Museum of Ireland – Natural History, I added to it awhile ago using the one history book written about it, but the citations are missing the page numbers. If I can fix that, then I don't think it would be too far off a GA itself, as the history is pretty comprehensive now given how relatively little there is formally written about it. Smirkybec (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to endorse, including the idea of a working space. I will give the Museum of Literature Ireland a good shot, and then might try to work up the Museum of Country Life, but there are so many potentials - only we found out about this year's drive quite close to time, so it's 1-2 per person, but also a good activity to plan for next year. Coverage of the Directors of the NMI is indeed disappointing, and while I improved a couple a little in the past, and Smirkybec has Pat Wallace in the queue, if someone had time in the next 2-3 days... SeoR (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Being bold, have created a not very clear or fancy sub-page, which hopefully can be used. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/International Museums Day. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm always a bit cautious with BLPs, probably letting the perfect be the enemy of the good! Smirkybec (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Started main drive on MoLI this half hour. But for BLPs, absolutely, especially the Wallace one - Google shows much good career coverage, but also, especially in the latter years, some controversy also, so delicate handling... I think that for this tight timing, we're best sticking to bricks-and-mortar. SeoR (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

MoLI done and submitted to DYK. Real Life kept popping up, so I'm not sure I'll get to do another today / tomorrow, but I think it would be great to keep going over the months ahead, and have a slate ready for next year. I went through the List of museums in the Republic of Ireland and visited more than half. Not so easy to update 5x, I'm afraid - many are of middling length already, and with poor sources, at least quickly, for major expansion. SeoR (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, not my area of expertise by any stretch, and I was very tight for time over the last few days in any case. That 5x target seems quite steep! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries Bastun! Apart from local smaller museums, these are the ones that have issues, and the associated people who are missing

• William Edward Steele director of the National Museum of Ireland
• George Tindall Plunkett ditto
• Anthony T. Lucas ditto
• Breandán Ó Ríordáin ditto
• Pat Wallace ditto
• Raghnall Ó Floinn (probably more notable for his archaeology)
• National Museum of Ireland marked as needing references
• Lucius O'Callaghan director of the National Gallery of Ireland
• George Furlong ditto
• Raymond Keaveney ditto
• National Photographic Archive ripe for expansion
• National Transport Museum of Ireland quite short
• Limerick City Gallery of Art another short one
• Number Twenty Nine: Georgian House Museum doesn't mention the recent plans to wind down the museum and build apartments in its place
• National Print Museum pretty short
• National Library of Ireland doesn't currently mention a list of directors, which both NMI and NGI do
• Sandra Collins the current director is definitely notable enough, not sure what disambiguator to use for her though
• National Concert Hall I suspect has some recent COI editing
• Highlanes Gallery few issues!

I expanded National Museum of Ireland – Decorative Arts and History from 2899 characters to 9770 on Saturday, so if I can get it to 15000 in the next few days, then I can submit it for a DYK. I haven't mentioned the Easter Week collection, their contemporary collections (like for the two big referendums) or Michael Collins' slippers yet, so I'm not worried about finding material :) might be creeping up on GA at that point too? Smirkybec (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I managed to expand National Museum of Ireland – Decorative Arts and History 5-fold, which means its now eligible for a DYK. Would anyone (SeoR, Ceoil?) mind taking a look to see what you think? I'm not sure what a hook would be - perhaps something about Collins' slippers, or the rapid response/contemporary collecting? Casting an eye over the article rating as well would be greatly appreciated! Thanks :) Smirkybec (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. And having looked, I'd say it has come along very nicely - and only clearly needs a more comprehensive lede before DYK. For GA, I think something needs to be said about the period 1889 to 1988, and a little bit more about the permanent collection, probably a few words about Daingean, and a little about each of leadership and staffing / operations and funding / visitorship and any critiques. And maybe just a tiny bit more illustration. I will comment further tomorrow - it's late, and MoLI is second in the DYK on the home page. SeoR (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'm a bit stumped at the moment on resources on that period (1899-1988) - I could pull some of the details of the former display of the Easter Week and Bender collections up into the history. There isn't a comprehensive history of the NMI written, everything focuses on the history of the Barracks rather than the collection/division, and I haven't found much that talks about these details and the staff. There are still some traces of the former exhibition spaces in Kildare Street like the Ceramics Room (most sources now talk about the Seanad moving in there, with no reference as to why it is called that). I know that most of the Divisions had collections stored in Daingean, but the only sources I have found only talk about Folklife. There isn't much by way of images, it is pretty small Commons category - it's strange how overlooked it is generally speaking. I'm also terrible at writing ledes :D Smirkybec (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

SeoR I managed to scrap together a bit of content for the 20th century, but there isn't a whole lot to draw from. I couldn't find anything that directly referenced art and industry collections in Daingean. Can you think of a good hook to throw it into DYK? (I think we only have until 24 May to nominate it before its too old, if it worth a nomination, honestly I'm happy to have managed to expand it this much!). Ceoil would you consider re-rating it? Thanks so much! Smirkybec (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Smirkybec Sounds great, will pop over and look - I'm very interested to see what you found. It is odd indeed that there is no official NMI history. I will then try to suggest a hook or two. Sorry for delayed reply, after MoLI I was checking other museums, noticed a gap (the Ledwidge Museum up in Slane), and then found the poet's article, with multiple issues, including some PROMO'd sections, and then RL intervened. Will definitely come back on this tonight. SeoR (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I really appreciate it! You're as bad as me, falling down all sorts of rabbit holes. Well done again on MoLi! I tweeted at them on the day and they were very pleased! Smirkybec (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that happens. I was actually shocked at the state of the Ledwidge piece, had to get stuck in at once - and ironically, there was not only no article on his museum, it wasn't even given a line in the poet's article. Nice one re. MoLI, did not see that (I've resisted the Twitter thing so far), and it's been good to see some impact - the 1.5 line piece was running 1-2 views a day, the average (excl. DYK day) is now 50+.

On NMI-DAH, I see 4-5 angles. DYK is a curious art, and sometimes the hooks are very much sidewise to the main thrust of the article. In this case, for example, I suspect #4 might garner a lot of readers, but it underlines a point which is not at all central to the article...

1) ... that a pair of blue slippers with a wolf's head pattern, held by the National Museum of Ireland – Decorative Arts and History, which belonged to Irish revolutionary leader Michael Collins, went viral online in 2021?

2) ... that the National Museum of Ireland – Decorative Arts and History holds a collection of more than 15,000 objects related to the Easter Rising of 1916?

3) ... that the exhibition The Way We Wore at the National Museum of Ireland – Decorative Arts and History displays Irish clothing from a span of 250 years, including work by Sybil Connolly?

4) ... that a major Asian collection was donated to the National Museum of Ireland – Decorative Arts and History by Jewish benefactor Alfred Bender while the musum was headed by Adolf Mahr, head of the Dublin Nazi chapter?

5) ... that the National Museum of Ireland – Decorative Arts and History outbid the Pompidou Centre for a major collection of materials related to Eileen Gray?

Go for it Smirkybec: the article has great potential after the improvment work! SeoR (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ugg. Has taken a week to get Gallagh Man to DYK, and though nobody cares anymore, its there now. Smirkybec, have re-rated SeoR's expansion; very nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I just put Quiet Man Cottage Museum online but it could do with some more work. ww2censor (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

'The Troubles in ...' articles: list entry criteria.

There is a unique list entry policy in many of the 'The Troubles in ...' suite of articles:

• 'Notable incidents in ... during the Troubles, or ones resulting in two or more fatalities'

The term is problematic in two senses.

1. The use of the word 'notable' - it is too subjective in this context and can lead to WP:NPOV problems. Also, the technical Wikipedia interpretation conflicts with the common understanding of the work 'notable' and that interpretation should not be enforced when it is front-facing.
2. The 'ones resulting in two or more fatalities' condition is unnecessarily restrictive and leaves Wikipedia open to accusations of whitewashing - you may believe one 'side' or the other are benefitting from the 'forgetting' of those killings. The condition also calls in to question the authoritativeness of the encylopedia.

This issue has manifested on the The Troubles in Rosslea article where there is now a dispute as to whether the killings of individuals in up to 4 separate incidents, which are supported by Malcolm Sutton's authoritative index (CAIN) and elsewhere, can be included on the pre-existing list. The pre-existing list is just 4 other entries (one of which is an individual killing). At least three of the disputed cases are 'notable' in layman's terms (for example, two were in-front of children).

I suggest the Wikipedia authoritative list approach is the correct approach for the vast majority of this class of list article - WP:CSC. Consequently this class of article should default to 'Incidents in ... during the Troubles resulting in fatalities' and existing ones should be convertable to that criteria without controversy.

Supporting evidence is the organic direction of travel for many of the existing 'The Troubles in ...' articles already. I include three examples here:

• The Troubles in Castlederg:
  • INITIAL: Incidents in Castlederg during the Troubles resulting in two or more fatalities:
  • NOW: Incidents in Castlederg during the Troubles:
• The Troubles in Cookstown:
  • INITIAL: Incidents in Cookstown during the Troubles resulting in two or more fatalities:
  • NOW: Incidents in Cookstown during the Troubles resulting in fatalities:
• The Troubles in Lisburn:
  • INITIAL: Incidents in Lisburn during the Troubles resulting in two or more fatalities:
  • NOW: Incidents in Lisburn during the Troubles resulting in fatalities:

Regards - 74 observer (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The more important question is should the articles even exist at all? The Troubles in Derry is an encyclopedia article. The vast majority of the rest are not, despite existing for 15 years. Will any of them ever actually become encyclopedia articles? FDW777 (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a different question. However my answer is yes as long as they are authoritative. 74 observer (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

One that needs to be answered. Furthermore At least three of the disputed cases are 'notable' in layman's terms (for example, two were in-front of children). What laymen are these? Ones you've just made up? FDW777 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Also we've known about the CAIN database, as well as Malcolm Sutton's book, for years. It doesn't change the fact the "two fatalities" standard was still used. FDW777 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily... combative? Notability does not apply to content within articles - WP:NOTEWORTHY. If we have sources, the information can be included within these articles. An arbitrary guideline, introduced years ago, can be changed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it can apply, see WP:LISTCRITERIA. I'd say saying an incident is notable because someone was killed in front of children is even more arbitrary than a two fatalities standard. FDW777 (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

So why not use a "recorded fatality" standard? That way, Vol. Séamus McElwaine's murder at the hands of the SAS could remain. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "recorded fatality" means. The inclusion criteria do allow for the inclusion of notable incidents, which is incidents or people with articles. It would be a strange state of affairs that we could consider someone notable enough for a Wikipedia article, yet not record their Troubles-related death in one of the "Troubles in [insert name]" articles. FDW777 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I pointed this out as issue (1) above. You are using 'notable' in Wikipedia technical sense to include McElwaine and exclude others. Yet the front-usage of the term requires the ordinary understanding (which means the reasonable user of an encyclopedia would expect to see Deering, McVitty and Kernaghan as well). Your approach raises issues with WP:N and WP:NPOV. The WP:CSC option resolves this issue via the authoritative list. 74 observer (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A recorded fatality in this context is - obviously - a Troubles-related fatality that's been reliably recorded as such. Sutton and CAIN are the usually accepted authoritative sources. But of course, you know this. It would be a strange state of affairs to exclude some Troubles-related killings based on an arbitrary number of fatalities actually occurring. Can I ask, who decided on this magic number of two, and when and where was it agreed? Is there any reason it can't be changed? There are plenty of instances of the British Army and/or loyalist gangs killing single nationalists/uninvolved civilians - say, for instance, the unlawful killing of John Pat Cunningham, shot in the back by, allegedly, Dennis Hutchings, or the killing of Carol Ann Kelly, a child shot with a rubber bullet, to pick just two. I'm surprised you'd want those excluded from coverage and at a loss to understand how it benefits the project. We won't run out of room. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I can answer your question, Bastun. All of the "The Troubles in..." articles were created by Ardfern between 28 August 2006 and 19 September 2006. The creation of the articles followed this discussion on the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board, where editors were complaining about Arfern's addition of the lists to the towns' articles. Only Ardfern specified a minimum of two deaths; nobody agreed with this, although everybody was happy to let him go ahead because it solved the immediate problem. According to Ardfern at the bottom of that discussion, he created 97 such articles. Several of them have been merged – minus the list of victims' names – or redirected back into the town article (eg. The Troubles in Kilrea), or to incident-specific articles (e.g. The Troubles in Ballykelly, The Troubles in Castlerock, The Troubles in Warrenpoint). --Scolaire (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I see Ardfern is still editing on an irregular basis, so may spot this ping and contribute here? It seems that discussion eventually led to the "Troubles in..." series of articles, but the "two fatalities minimum" was/is fairly arbitrary. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been delving in to Ardfern's justification for these 'stub' articles as he explains Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Troubles_in_Moneymore. The '2 or more fatalities' criteria was part justification for only creating a stub - seems it made the effort feasible within a restricted time-frame. In relation to the Moneymore stub he explains "it covers incidents of 2 fatalities or more, but the objective is to expand them all to cover all incidents". He also points out "these 97 articles are there because of substantial debate [...], the conclusion of which was that all troubles incidents articles should remain separate from town/village articles". He argues by way of justification on "the Wiki way" and that "CAIN does not provide info by town, hence the value of this article in its connection to the village". 74 observer (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I find it hard to argue with those points. Indeed I see The Troubles in Rosslea as a great place to start in driving these stubs to encyclopedical standard as there are just 4 known additional entries required on that article. 74 observer (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete all. Every, or nearly every article is in direct breach of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, being only lists of non-notable (in any sense) people who died. Note that victims' names have been removed from articles such as Birmingham pub bombings (discussion here) and La Mon restaurant bombing (discussion here). In those circumstances, having dozens of articles consisting only of victims' names makes no sense. Clearly, opening an AfD for all extant articles would require somebody with time and dedication. If you wanted to start small, the obvious place to start would be The Troubles in Rosslea. --Scolaire (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the WP:NOTMEMORIAL policy as being relevant here at all. The policy states: 'Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.' That policy is clearly aimed at preventing memorials along the lines you see on findagrave.com. Such memorials are not the case here, a list of fatal incidents due to specific reasons in a locality is a substantially different thing - the very existence of the list itself in a locality being the notable aspect. 74 observer (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@74 observer: If you truly believe that, why did you leave an edit summary of "Douglas Deering will not be forgotten" --Scolaire (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A fair enough comment at the time because the intent behind the intransigent enforcement of the 'list criteria' was immediately transparent to me. It may have been somewhat triggering. However, this is now an encylopediacal matter. 74 observer (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet presumably while WP:NOTMEMORIAL would apply to Birmingham pub bombings and La Mon restaurant bombing, it would not equally apply to Bloody Sunday (1972) and similar, because... reasons? Ah, yes, the Bloody Sunday article lists how/when/where each person died. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bastun: I have not said anything about the Bloody Sunday article. Maybe you're confusing me with Domer48 and BigDunc? If you want to raise that question again there's nothing stopping you. Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

:-) I'm ten+ years older and wiser, and not going down that particular rabbit-hole again! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Alternatively, redirect those articles that have one blue-linked incident, and merge – minus victims' names – those articles that have more than one blue-linked incident back into the town article. In Rosslea's case, this would mean redirecting to Attack on Derryard checkpoint. --Scolaire (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Update as per normal using the standard Wikipedia criteria regarding sources and references and remove bespoke and arbitrary restrictions in doing so - the organic process. 74 observer (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Update as per normal, using the standard Wikipedia criteria regarding sources and references, per 74 observer, including relevant details and references rather than just a list of names, to satisfy WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Remove all non-notable people killed, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Or alternately, just delete almost every single one of the articles as being a transparent memorial and not what the article titles claim. FDW777 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

————— 74 observer (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC) —————

Based on the discussions etc., the proposed change is in fact supported by:

1. The WP:CSC policy supports the complete list: "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group".
2. Not completing the list leaves Wikipedia subject to an interpretation of bias violating WP:NPOV.
3. There is nothing sacrosanct about the original and arbritary list criteria. The original intent of the article creator (Ardfern) was to expand the selection criteria over time (as highlighted above).
4. There is precedent to these exact changes - The Troubles in Castlederg, The Troubles in Lisburn have naturally evolved as expected.
5. Policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL is satisfied by the non-memorial type details that are included on the list, i.e. information about the actual incident etc.
6. There is no 'listing' issue here as the lists are naturally bounded.
   1. Wikipedia notabilty per WP:N of each individual entry is NOT relevant to the proposed list.
   2. Likewise WP:LISTPEOPLE does NOT apply. The list will be of 'incidents in X that resulted in fatalities'.

I reject your sumary of the discussuion, since it simply seeks to ignore any oppoisition based in guidelines and policies by pretending they don't apply. FDW777 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 - please review the 5 pillars in particular WP:5P2 (neutrality), WP:5P3 (anyone to edit, no ownership) and WP:5P4 (respect). 74 observer (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

————— 74 observer (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC) —————

The article The Troubles in Rosslea has been updated as per WP:CSC. Bona-fide and good faith reviews are welcome.

No consensus for the change, especially since most of the entries fail the notability criteria thus failing WP:CSC. FDW777 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That is not the issue as you are by now well aware and are actively preventing constructive wiki-like progress on this project. You didn't review the 5 pillars as I requested above. Please review WP:5P2 (neutrality), WP:5P3 (anyone to edit, no ownership) and WP:5P4 (respect). 74 observer (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You can make vague hints at policy as much as you like, unless you're going to quote the exact wording it's meaningless. No ownership means you don't get to make whatever change you like, quite obviously. FDW777 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been gone over with you several times at this stage. See above. Likewise you do not have ownership over this article. I'm the one making constructive updates to bring the article up to standard and I'd like that effort to be respected.

.

I'll ask this question here as well. The following killings have been removed from the The Troubles in Rosslea article by User:FDW777. Can anyone give some feedback on what they see as the rationale for rigidly enforcing an arbitrary and ambigious list critera that excludes the below killings from the article, whilst the WP:CSC policy would readily include them - "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". Some feedback would be useful. Thanks 74 observer (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• 12 May 1977 - Douglas Deering (53). Protestant shopkeeper killed whilst working in his shop - a suspected Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) shooting.

• 15 October 1979 - Herbert Kernaghan (36). Member of the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR). Killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in front of several dozen school children whilst delivering vegetables to St Tierney's primary school Roslea. School staff were held at gun point while the IRA waited for Kernaghan to arrive.

• 23 September 1980 - Ernest Johnston (36). Member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) shot by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in the laneway of his home. IRA member Séamus McElwaine was convicted for his murder at Belfast Crown Court and was sentenced to serve at least 30 years (including for the murder of Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) Corproal Alexander Abercrombie).

• 8 July 1986 - John McVitty (46). Member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). Killed by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) in front of his young son whilst cutting rushes on a neighbour's farm. Had stopped his tractor to talk to his 12 year old son when two IRA men emerged from a ditch and shot him in the back. The two men escaped across the Monaghan border approximately 400 yards away.

• 29 October 1988 - Mary Rooney (81). Died from a heart attack soon after evacuation from her home due to a Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) mortar attack on Roslea's Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) base. Four mortars were fired from a stolen tractor on a Saturday evening. According to an RUC spokesperson, "responsibility for this death must lie with the IRA terrorists who fired the mortars".

• 17 July 1994 - Caroline Moreland (34). A mother of three from west Belfast disappeared by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) for 10 days and found shot in the head near Roslea. The IRA claimed she was an informer however the 10 days between disapperance and death led to questions about IRA torture to obtain admissions. For a number of years Caroline had been the vice-chairperson of the West Belfast Muscular Dystrophy Association. Her killing was described by Cardinal Cathal Daly as "one particularly loathsome operation".

The conclusion here from all this is update as per above. 74 observer (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it isn't. FDW777 (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The update has been made. You reverted and I restored. It's subject to a 1RR rule so do not revert for 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74 observer (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly—and to counter the bizarre claims that we should "delete all" such lists—if an editor wants to go that road, AfD is thataway. That's where inclusion is discussed, not remote backwaters. Secondly, there's some misunderstanding of the relevant policy in this discussion. The policy is clear that one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. I.e. the subject as a whole has been discussed, not the individual events for inclusion (Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable). It is also true that policy provides that editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. But that, of course, clearly only applies to long lists that are becoming unmanageable; hardly a problem we are likely to face with the troubles in Rosslea, etc. ——Serial 13:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• I can't spead for wheoever decided to create the lists in the first place, but presumably they didn't want to document all 3,500+ deaths? Do we include lists of people who died during The Blitz in village/town/city articles? No. The decision, for whatever reason, was made to limit articles to include only notable incidents, and they set a benchmark of two deaths for that. FDW777 (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That's why there's no List of victims of The Troubles, which would be unmanageable and so covered by WP:LISTN's caveat, while there are very small, manageable lists such as these. I don't personally, see the problem of including well-sourced material to an unoverburdened article; regardless of artificial criteria, I don't think stubs per se are a good thing or to be aspired to (tq|A stub should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it}}, and all that). Mind you, I don't deny that in this topic more than many, POV rides again. ——Serial 13:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing, they shouldn't be lists at all. The Troubles in Derry is an encyclopedia article, and doesn't even include a list of people that died there. Over the course of their existence nore time has been spent arguing about the inclusion criteria than writing encyclopedic articles. These lists are not a starting point, they are a dead end path to endless arguments. FDW777 (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• And for clarity the delete argument was intended as a potential solution to the problem, not an attempt to sidestep AFD. FDW777 (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why geographically split articles are an extremely bad idea in the first place

Things that happened in one town or village can't be viewed in isolation from each other, yet our "The Troubles in [insert location]" articles did. To use two high profile examples, The Troubles in Greysteel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The Troubles in Loughinisland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (both of which are now redirects to different articles). The pre-merge/redirect/refocus versions of The Troubles in Greysteel and The Troubles in Loughinisland contained no mention of the prior events that led to the latter events taking place, the Shankill Road bombing (reference) and the 1994 Shankill Road killings (reference). This will be a failure repeated time and again across all the articles, as to split them geographically incorrectly assumes that "revenge" killings will happen in the same town/village/city area as the original ones. You cannot get an accurate picture of what happened during the Troubles in this way. FDW777 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Who has a drone camera?

Does anyone around Dublin have a drone with which they can photograph the restored Second World War EIRE sign on the Hawk Cliff in Dalkey made to warn aircraft they were about the enter the neutral state. It will be great for The Emergency (Ireland) article. See this Irish Times article. ww2censor (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Upload request for article Great Famine

Hello, every user from the Irish project. I am User:波斯波莉斯, a Chinese Wikipedian. And I currently want to upload these two or three pictures [1]&[2] to this article's section "Emigration". They are essential to the entry. But I don't know whether they belong to the public domain. I am also not familiar with Wikicommon's criteria for uploading. Please help me to work it out. Thanks for your assistance.--波斯波莉斯 (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

波斯波莉斯: Both these images are in the public domain and being noted as US Government works should be licensed as {{PD-USGov}} even thought {{PD-US-expired}} also applies and uploaded to the commons, not here. In the notes there is mention of a raster image being available though I don't see a link to them. These would be a better format for such maps if you can find them. ww2censor (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Ireland 2021

I wanted to give you a heads up that Wikimedia Community Ireland is supporting this year's Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP), this means we have a local page for the campaign, and prizes for editors adding images and using the hashtags #WPWP and #WPWPIE. I have added some of the image categories relevant to Ireland that could be better utilised across Wikipedias, but specifically EN and GA. I hope that some of you will consider taking part, it runs from 1 July to 31 August. Any questions, just let me know! Smirkybec (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Fictional flag

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Flag of the British Isles may be of interest. PamD 07:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice

An RFC is taking place, which may affect Irish political bios. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Imperial Hotel, Dublin

I eventually put this, 1916 related, article together but it could do with some additional early origin history. ww2censor (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This is really great work! I'll see if I can find anything to add from my small Dublin buildings library :) Smirkybec (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Navan Fort#Requested move 18 July 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Navan Fort#Requested move 18 July 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Philip Burton#Requested move 19 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Philip Burton#Requested move 19 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Connacht#Requested move 13 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Connacht#Requested move 13 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FAR for James Joyce

User:Buidhe has nominated James Joyce for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Dublin's white horses

As part of my trawling through images on Commons for Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos, I came across some interesting images of the white horse statue that was/is common enough in old Georgian fan lights, especially in Dublin. I want to write an article on these, similar to the one I wrote on the Lady on the Rock (statue) but I'm not sure what to call the article. Would White horse (statue) do the job? Smirkybec (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably not - White horse (disambiguation) is huge, though there don't seem to be any statues there. Are they actually statues? I can't visualize one, do you have a photo? Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

There's an example pictured in this article (not the banner image, the ones in the fan lights). Perhaps White horse (Dublin statue)? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe White horse (fanlight decoration) would be more precise. I've never seen or heard of one in England, but "Dublin" may be too specific. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thoughts, that photo is on Commons as its from the NLI on the Commons project and it is the one I plan to use! Looking into it, I'm unsure if there is enough for a whole article. I was thinking about adding it to Cultural depictions of William III of England or Protestantism in Ireland - what do you think? Smirkybec (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, with a redirect. Personally, I suspect the White horse of Hanover is at least as relevant as Kung Bully. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Merging to create Irish head of state from 1922 to 1949

I have proposed merging Monarchy in the Irish Free State and Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949, so that we have a single page giving an account of the changing and diminishing role of the monarchy in the Irish state, detailing each of the steps like the Statue of Westminster, various early FF amendments, 1936, 1937, and 1948/49. I think there's broad enough consensus in the discussion to effect the merge, but as the discussion there was brief, with one dissenter, I thought I might flag it here before going ahead later this week. For what it's worth, I plan to move the second page, and then copy the material over with the appropriate attribution, before editing it to make it work as a single page. – Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. I'll review it with a fresh pair of eyes for inevitable duplications and structural issues later, would definitely encourage any interested editors to look over it. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Something has happened that has caused the main parties be abbreviated in all Irish election infoboxs

@Spleodrach: @Bastun: @BrownHairedGirl: @Ser!: @Iveagh Gardens:

Hi there, I hope ye don't mind the ping. I've tagged each of you because you are all active on recent Irish election pages such as 2020 Irish general election and 2021 Dublin Bay South by-election. I've just noticed a significant change has occurred to all Irish election pages and I don't know how to undo it. Someone has made it so that, now, when you enter Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Sinn Féin into an infobox_election without being wrapped by double [ and double ], those names abbreviate to FF, FG and SF. This is inconsistent with the rest of the infobox. So for example, Labour remain Labour, Social Democrats remain Social Democrats, Progressive Democrats remain Progressive Democrats etc.

The whole thing is, to me, overkill. The names of Irish parties, outside of People before Profit, are not particularly long. Also, for some reason, whoever has made this change has reduced the 5 letter "Aontú" down to simply "Aon". What benefit is shaving the last two letters off?

This change had caused other problems too. Take 1922 Irish general election for example: Previously "Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin" and "Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin" was what appeared in the infobox. Now both default to "SF", which is not helpful and is in fact confusing.

I presume this has happened because someone, somewhere, manually altered this. However, I've no idea where or how to undo this. Do any of you know anything about this or how it could be reverted?

Thanks, CeltBrowne (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've figured out what happened. Module:Political party now controls what name appears in the Infobox. This new module imported previous data, but in many cases there are glitches in it and the correct "short name" wasn't imported and simply left blank, and so things defaulted to the imported abbreviation. I've been able to fix some parties such as Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Anti and Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin, but can't seem to fix Sinn Féin or Cumann na Gaedhael at the moment. It seems like this new module has not done very well with Irish political parties, particularly the smaller ones. CeltBrowne (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some notes - stuff is changing as I'm doing this with CSD Category deletions / removals such as Category:Northern Ireland political party abbreviated name templates.

• There was a template for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#Political shortname and color templates

  Involved templated include {{Infofox election}} ... but that's only affected because the User:Primefac's Bot has chosen to implement changing party Party values to {{Tempalte:Party shortname linked}} .. least I though I saw that somewhere.

  Bot smack on the B-O-T-TOM as the grandmother used to say ?

  Ho hum someone's trying to shove the whole system down the boghole! Special:Diff/1058675626, Special:Diff/1058632944 et al ...

  See also {{Political party abbrev key}} / {{Irish political party key for table}}

Stuff's changing as I speak and its unclear what's going on. I'm off to a Shebang Finnegan's Wake after strictly ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CeltBrowne for the ping. I've been on a bit of a wikibreak, and won't be back for too long here (by the way, not sure why a clearly active conversation here was archived). I noticed it earlier today that party colours were now incorporated into these party module databases. I'll keep an eye on this when I resume activity, I'm planning to continue checking references on constituency pages through the early part of the new year, so should be able to catch at least some of those that were missed out. –Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Spencer Dock

I have begun to explore the "Spencer Dock" district of Dublin and am concerned how it is represented into on Wikipedia and Wikidata. I think, and I may be wrong, indeed very wrong, that the Spencer Dock area is an area approximately centred around the "Central park" area just south of the Luas station, western edge being the Royal Canal, Northern edge being the R101 oor maybe a little to the north of it to freight lines, the Liffey to the south, and the Eastern edge at or somewhat beyond or well beyond New Wapping Street. However Wikidata (and some other points) seems to be claim the Central point is the Sheriff Lifting Bridge and that Spencer Dock is alongside the Royal Canal. Any Dubs or others having any thoughts? I barely physically know the area and not since recent changes. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I write a project on the canal long ago, and I walked the area as a kid. Spencer Dock was a canal dock (in two sections), and ran from inside the quayside bridge all the way to Newcomen Bridge / North Strand. The "new area" is sort of defined around this stretch. But with usual "property project" vagueness and license. Hope that helps. SeoR (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@SeoR: sorry .. didn't notice you had made an enter here and I wrote something on the Article talk page, and that's the best place to following the discussion. I've got some early sourcing from Shepherd I can use. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion to be made at article talk page: e.g. Talk:Spencer Dock#Toponymy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-assessment of Sir Edward Crosbie's page

Please could someone re-assess an article Talk:Sir Edward Crosbie, 5th Baronet which is no longer either a stub nor a start class? Furthermore, it now has an infobox. Thanks. Anne (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbil44: there is actually an assessment request section here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment. I have reassessed it now. ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Moy, County Tyrone

Several sources say Humphrey Lloyd Hime was born in "Moy, County Armagh". But Moy, County Armagh, does not seem to exist. It's not listed in the GeoNames search for the UK or Ireland. Our article on Moy, County Tyrone, says that Moy is right next to the River Blackwater, which divides Cos Armagh and Tyrone. So I suspect that the sources are just confused about which side of the river Moy is on. Is anyone able to clarify? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Several places moved county under Orders in Council pre-1921, and Ministerial Orders after, but I don't think (The) Moy was one of them. I think the explanation is simply that Hime came from the part of the village's hinterland which was across the border in Co. Armagh. It might even have had a postal address of Armagh. But I will try to check further. I see Armagh in an old scanned book covering Himes, so the confusion is not new. SeoR (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@SeoR and AleatoryPonderings: I don't know if this helps you, but every source I have, or can access, lists Moy's post town as Dungannon in Co Tyrone. This comes from such sources as the all island 1920 Post Office Guide through to the An Post's 1977 guide and various Irish and UK official publications in between. It is not uncommon for some post offices in Irish towns and villages and the addresses in their delivery area to have their post town in a different county. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos of posters in Ireland

This is related to a sister site - Commons. But there might be some interest & expertise here. It appears that photos of political posters are about to be systematically deleted.

No [of panorama] in Ireland for 2D graphic works per [Ireland].

I think that this is a daft interpretation of the law. Are there any experts here who could appeal this interpretation ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have some legal training, and worked a bit with copyright law, and this interpretation seems excessive for some images. Irish copyright law has an exception:

>The copyright in a work is not infringed by its inclusion in an incidental manner in another work.

which would allow a scene with political posters to be included.

However, publication of a straight photo, for example a close-up, of a political poster, is definitely a breach of copyright, even if the publishers might not mind too much. SeoR (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. How close is close? Modern digital cameras can zoom in pretty far to detect names / dates etc, even if they are not obvious to the naked eye. @O'Dea: who was involved in the same argument on Commons. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Political posters are certainly not permanent so they fail that portion of Irish FoP and secondly they may be included where the use is de minimis. To comply the poster should not be the obvious important portion or focus of the overall image. ww2censor (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is the key legal point: "should not be the obvious important portion or focus of the overall image." And a deliberate zoom-in obviates this. SeoR (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Take this photo as an example. Is it de minimis? [3] Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd say yes, especially given the oblique angle, but Commons enforcers don't really do de minimis. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably yes ... but it is in the Posters category which is possible indictor of a problem and the image taker has probably taken care in framing the image to include it and I think it could actually be reasonalby be cropped out. So it possibly might not pass deepest scrutiny. If there was no viable crop which did not affect the quality in terms of the primary subject of the image nor generally the quality of the image or requiring a non-standard aspect ratio then there would essentially be far less of a possible problem. Pointing the poster out in a caption might also be an indicator of an issue. (I only an amateur in these things). Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg which may help establish a precedent or at least give an indication. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Comparing those two images doesn't seem to like with like to me. If we take the first example with the political poster within the picture then wouldn't we have to delete any urban street scene that has any advertisement of poster anywhere in shot? That seems to be tipping into the absurd to me. Smirkybec (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Much to probably everyone's annoyance, including some who have placed much good work on commons, I've nom'd c:Deletion requests/File:Dublin (42084461691).jpg as a test case so we know where we are, as I've heavily been burned getting it wrong. If anyone's up for imaging a headstone in mount Jerome please ping me, it is difficult for me to get there myself and my man M. missed it (actually he's not m man but he's a real goto on flickr for modern Irish stuff). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Update and 3 posers: triggered by an image change by Inchicore images today, but be aware I have developed too much involvement and the infatuation with aspects/involvements with the Luas so please we aware of that and thats an issue

A couple of these relate to luas stuff for which I become too interest/involved a COI that has arisen since mid/late August. .. and the old eyebrow might raise higher and higher. The fairly obvious de minimis @ c:Deletion requests/File:Dublin (42084461691).jpg seems heading for a keep; the large poster at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg has been deleted as expected. Present the following for appraisal or thoughts for any that are interested some of which may be borderline keep/delete on 2D stuff. Thankyou: -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• c:File:Paul McGrath Inchicore traffic light box.jpg: Artwork on a piece of traffic furniture at Inchicore. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• c:File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg: Poster at station. Significantly in background -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• c:File:Mount Jerome Cemetery - 115259 (25978139453).jpg : Gravestone, of interest to me as a gravestone somewhat near this is interesting to me a I'd like it for an article/potential article recincarnation; my man here very unusually seemingly and rarely missing something significant nearby. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• c:File:QA Hospital Cosham - Garden of Life - Connaught 1897 stone.jpg - linked only to Ireland by being laid by the "Duke of Connaught-Strathearn" near Portsmouth, England, more interested in foundation stones in general. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Decision tree from c:Commons:Derivative works

@Djm-leighpark: I've nominated c:File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg for deletion but the others are likely fine. A couple helpful Commons policy pages are c:COM:Derivative works (probably the best overview of the multiple aspects of copyright at play when determining if these photos are allowed on Commons - flowchart to the right), c:COM:De minimis (mentioned in discussion above), and c:COM:Ireland (Ireland-specific copyright rules, including Irish Freedom of Panorama and Threshold of Originality). -M.nelson (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Buildings and murals in Northern Ireland

Since September I've done some bits on commons, and excluding a China/Japan related gobsmacker I dont want to get into as I small part of activities I got to load a handful of buildings with murals/graffiti in England. As a result of getting involved in the discussion at C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ross Blair – Frederick Douglass.jpg with regards to a image in Scotland a number of images in Derry City have been nominated for deletion. I believe these come under C:COM:FOP UK and interpretation thereof. Example of an article that would be affected is Clare Crockett though I don't think the bot has forwarded the notification yet. The Gaelic Wiki would also be affected for some images. Unsure if M.nelson or others wish to comment. Thankyou. 22:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC) (unsigned) (Djm-leighpark)

Links (that work) please! Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry: Fixed (hopefully) & self-TROUTing :  Done Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Irish phonology

I have nominated Irish phonology for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:FASA

Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas in Ireland

Hi all, both this year and last I made an effort to improve this article on Christmas in Ireland - specifically to address the geographical balance issues on it. Would someone be willing to review the rating of it? I know it is probably a bit weighted towards historically traditional Christmas customs at this point, but I think the quality is creeping up? Smirkybec (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd happily give it a C if the lead were bulked up a bit. Also "Christmas in Ireland traditionally begins on 8 December, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception" probably doesn't work everywhere, I'm guessing! Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

So I've given tweaking the lead a go. I take your point on that, but most texts on the traditions of Ireland don't tend to take partition into account, and finding good sources about contemporary celebrations is tricky! Smirkybec (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Presumably, Protestant celebrations were historically pretty muted, as in Presbyterian Scotland, and now relate mainly to the high holiday of retailing - not that I know at all. It might be better to adress that head on in the (still rather short) lead. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If I could find a source for something like that, I certainly would have added it, but I haven't found anything much to that affect in my reading on the matter! Smirkybec (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

I have raised a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Railway Preservation Society of Ireland regarding concerns of editing on Railway Preservation Society of Ireland, a society covering the Island of Ireland. The article has previously been subject to some problematic editing, and I have concerns some editors may be using Wikipedia to further South Vs North grudes on parts of the society, though others may not interpret that way. I am too involved and will need to stand back to a large extend, but it is appropriate for me to let neutral members of appropriate Wikiprojects of my concerns. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

War of Independence

Some input would be appreciated at Talk:Irish War of Independence#Causality. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Fergus O'Connor b. circa 1876

Does anyone happen to know the date of death for the photographer and publisher Fergus O'Connor b. circa 1876 who was imprisoned in Lewes in 1917? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. If you are talking about the Fergus O'Connor from Cork who ran his publishing business from Eccles Street in Dublin (the Fergus O'Connor of the NLI Fergus O'Connor Collection), then (as far as I am aware) he died in Dublin in August 1952. I have otherwise no reason to question what is written about him here. Except that the writer left out his marriage (to Maudie Fitzgerald in Bandon in Jan 1918). And his death (in Dublin in Aug 1952). If you need validation, you could also ask those operating the NLI Flickr Commons stream - who released annother image from the Fergus O'Connor collection (to the Commons) just the other day. Why, if you don't mind me asking, do you ask? Guliolopez (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Some dude has already asked the Marys there. Was thinking about applicability of c:Template:PD-old-70 for a flickr2commonsut seems I be a tad too early, though I also had a mild notion in passing he might be notable enough for an article, though not actively pursuing that at this time if someone thinks its worth picking up. This is a straight, not a tram wreck job to China and Japan. Thankyou again. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC) I must admit I am mulling creatingnow created a draft article for O'Connor of this at some point soon, it doesn't mean it will happen and it doesn't mean it would go mainspace. But it might be handy to have a wikidata item for his 70th aniversary. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC) (Updated: Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC))

Lists mentioning British Isles including Ireland

Looking at List of natural disasters in the British Isles and wondering if the argument for Split and delete? on the talk page deserves more attention. I certainly agree that this should be changed as suggested into one for Ireland and one for the United Kingdom and this article deleted- or at the very least have the name changed to List of natural disasters in Ireland and the United Kingdom and then actually ADD all of those...- Thoughts? ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 16:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, I agree that this list's name and framing is less than ideal and very heavily weighted to Britain etc. and is well overdue an overhaul. Smirkybec (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree too; I do see that there was some value in a common list, as some events affect both landmasses, but there is more in two lists which can cross-reference each other. SeoR (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I rather disagree - most of the events are Atlantic weather affecting both. As far as I can see on a quick look, the single Ireland-only one is "2008 - 2008 Irish flash floods - Flash floods throughout August lead to one death and the destruction of 50 houses." An Ireland-only list would need references specific to Ireland, which most probably are not. Perhaps it should only begin with Independence. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Baronies in Fingal

It would be helpful if more people participate in this category discussion about Baronies in Fingal. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note the proposal does not propose to abolish County Dublin. The proposal does not deny that Fingal is a county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Costelloe Lodge

Hi - I’ve begun an article on Costelloe Lodge, [4]. It’s an interesting house that was designed for J. Bruce Ismay, of Titanic notoriety, by Edwin Lutyens. Unfortunately, neither Commons nor Geograph appears to have an image. The lodge does look to be pretty remote, but if any Irish editors have, or could take, an image to upload, I’d greatly appreciate it. KJP1 (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

As it is included in NIAH, I can add it to the Irish edition of Wiki Loves Monuments, which might prompt someone to photograph it. Looks like it is rented out as a holiday home? Smirkybec (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Smirkybec - It is indeed! If I had the slightest interest in fishing, I might give it a closer look. I’m a little surprised there’s nothing on Commons or Geograph. I really dislike Architecture articles without images - a picture does indeed speak a thousand words - so anything you can do to drum up interest would be much appreciated. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Year in Ireland articles, post-1921 infoboxes

I've noticed in the infoboxes of the Year in Ireland articles, from 1922 in Ireland to 2022 in Ireland, includes Northern Ireland. Shouldn't the map be changed to exclude Northern Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

As for 1921 in Ireland article, perhaps colour Northern Ireland in 'dark blue' (see Year in Northern Ireland articles), leaving the rest of the island coloured in 'green'. This would better reflect the partition in 1921. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK Pearse street station?

There is a DYK on Portal:Trains for the fact ...that due to its proximity to Pearse Street, many Dubliners refer to Pearse station incorrectly as Pearse Street Station?. However at Dublin Pearse railway station#Station renaming that claim is uncited. Has any Dub been giving Slambo the craic? Can anyone resolve please? Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a common error. But an actual citation? That's what sub-editors are for. You won't find it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You could reword I guess. And use these types of examples as evidence of common use (rightly or wrongly) of "Pearse Street station".... Guliolopez (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've tried some sort of bold rapid kludge fix. It people are not happy feel welcome to improve or revert. Thanks for help. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That helps, yes - although that NTA example, while special given the Authority's role, does not speak to Dubliners' common usages. I'll try to find more. I'm very surprised that the DYK team did not catch the lack of citation for the primary "hook" fact. SeoR (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Found one, in the paper pile in the garage, not in my scattered Irish historical rail journals (indexing not so good) but in a reputable UK publication. Funny how hard it can be to evidence something all Dubliners know. SeoR (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did spot references back to 1996 ... "Man trapped under DART: [CITY EDITION]. (1996, May 17). Irish Times Retrieved from [5] quote=An employee at Pearse Street station said the man jumped" ... I also note "Pearse Street station" can refer to the Garda station giving ample scope for the probationers to misdirect redacted tourists in check pants not just via the redacted taxi driver route but to the wrong establishment entirely for the craic. I really ought to apologise for the humour and at one point thought Slambo might have been a victim! The may also be opportunities of TCD student jokes .... I'm not sure what the late Bergin would of thought of this ... I'm not sure anyone's even bothered to put up as much as a plaque at his old house! I've still got to sort polychrome brickwork at Malahide. (By the way checkout ProQuest). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

Hi all, there is currently a discussion on the talk of St. Fin Barre's, mainly about the balance of weight to be given to its religious or architectural significance in the opening sentence. Input appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Short descriptions for Taoisigh and Presidents

Hi all, today I standardised all of the short descriptions of past presidents and Taoisigh of Ireland. My main goal in this is that they all have a standardised short description. @SeoR very rightly told me (over on the talk page for Brian Cowen) that I should have asked for opinions on what format they should take! The formats I went with was:

- For presidents: "nth president of Ireland from XXXX to XXXX". In the case of Mary Robinson, this reads as "7th president of Ireland from 1990 to 1997".

- For Taoisigh: "nth Taoiseach from XXXX to XXXX". In the case of Seán Lemass, this reads as "4th Taoiseach from 1959 to 1966".

SeoR had (as I see it) two primary issues with this format:

i) That the dates should be given in brackets, to read (in the case of Robinson) as "7th president of Ireland (1990 – 1997)".

ii) That in the case of the short descriptions for Taoisigh (and indeed, Tánaistí, which I hadn't even thought to do), they should be preceded with the descriptor "Irish politician", as most global readership will be unfamiliar with the term Taoiseach. This would read "Irish politician; 4th Taoiseach from XXXX to XXXX".

For what it's worth, my reasoning in formatting it the way I did was based largely on the short descriptions for American presidents, which is consistently given as "nth president of the United States from XXXX to XXXX". A number of these are featured articles, and I like the concept of broad consistency within Wikipedia as much as is reasonable so I do think that the years shouldn't be bracketed. A quick check shows that articles about both British and Canadian Prime Ministers also follow the "from XXXX to XXXX" format.

In regards to the point about giving an explanation about them being Irish politicians, I definitely agree with SeoR that an Irish caveat should be put in for the Taoisigh. In my head, something like "4th Irish Taoiseach" or "4th Taoiseach of Ireland" would be appropriate. I personally believe that adding the word politician would be unnecessary, but I'm happy to follow consensus - I just would like to make the descriptions consistently formatted with each other, and if possible with articles about other world leaders.

Thanks for reading and please advise! Xx78900 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Xx78900; I defer to the broader community on the specifics. Short descriptions are not used at all by a large body of users, but significant for a material sub-set, especially on some devices, so it's important they convey a quick "aha" in a short-but-clear format, hence my concern about our Irish-derived titles, but over to the broader team... Just one small copy-editor point - if using the format, e.g. "4th Taoiseach of Ireland, yyyy to zzzz", a comma is needed (and an agreed approach for multi-term officer-holders whose terms are not back-to-back. SeoR (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving out the ordinal number. Short descriptions should be short, give information at a glance, so shouldn't have longer text than necessary. I notice they're not used in the case of British PMs either, for example. The Americans are big into noting the ordinal number of their presidents, which isn't quite as significant here. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Child and Family Agency

I've separated Child and Family Agency from Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, and added a few more links to it. It mightn't come up in new pages, as there was previously a disambiguation page there, so flagging it here in case others wish to add to the article in its infancy.

By the way, it's a good instance of the benefit of linking to CFA or Tusla, rather than the target section in DCEDIY, as it was a redirect with possibilities. — Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Regions of Ireland

What started as a project of ensuring references to constituencies were up to date, led to counties, and now to Regions. I'll likely continue editing various parts for currency over the course of the this year, though with a census out, it would be good to have them up to date by then.

In any case, it would be good to get consensus about how we describe Regions in Ireland. Up to 2014, there were two sets of regions defined in Irish law: the 8 Regional Authorities Regions (defined in SI 394/1993) and 2 Regional Assembly Regions (defined in SI 226/1999). These corresponded to the NUTS 3 and NUTS 2 regions under EU definitions.

Since 2015, there are now 3 Regions and 8 strategic planning areas (defined in SI 573/2014). The changes are detailed at Regional Assemblies in Ireland. These correspond with NUTS 2 and 3 respectively (although the Eastern SPA is titled Mid-East under the NUTS nomenclature).

I wanted be sure there was consensus about names of articles. I recently renamed articles about the NUTS 2-level regions to Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, Northern and Western Regional Assembly and Southern Regional Assembly, as it was thing that there was most to say in them. But maybe there's a case for leaving the topic for these pages to be the regions more generally, with the Assemblies as a heading within only. There is more than the Regional Assembly associated with each Region; see for example the Regional Reports for Ireland 2040, guided I'm sure by the Regional Assemblies, but actually written in these cases by the Government generally, rather than the respective Assemblies.

A small point to note, in the Project 2040 plan for Dublin, they refer to the county of Dublin, meaning the four local government areas. The Chief Whip in proposing a government motion last week on the Dublin Citizens' Assembly referred to "Dublin City and County". We should of course be clear through the project that three counties created in 1994 are counties just as much as Wicklow or Kildare, at least in any list of local government areas, and that administratively County Dublin ceased to exist in 1994. But we needn't be more meticulous to avoid the term County Dublin than the government itself, for example in describing geographical terms. Aside from "Dublin Region" no longer being defined in Irish law since 2015. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion".

Denis O'Conor Don

Hello, WikiProject,

I was looking into the edits of an IP account who created and perpetuated hoax articles and came across this article they worked on. It's a poorly sourced article and I have reverted their contributions but I was hoping that perhaps someone here would be interested in finding adequate sources to support the claims in this article. I was almost thinking of tagging the page for deletion consideration but a quick search showed me that this person did exist and I found a few obituaries. Maybe an editor with better access to Irish news and media sources could find literature that would help support the claims & biographical details. Or maybe this page should be reduced to a stub, I don't know. Thanks for any help anyone could provide on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't see much to this article, I've nominated it for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis O'Conor Don. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Renaming a page

Hi there,

Not sure if this is the right place to ask but I was just looking to see if it would be possible to rename a page? The page is question is Woodie's DIY. They rebranded back in 2014 to to drop the DIY section of the name. They now just go by Woodie's. I began to do this myself but I can't / don't think I'm allowed to rename the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmap99 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This would be the right page to get info on it, the Request Moves page. You don't want to just change the name in the text, but completely move the page. Woodie's is a redirect so you can't move it yourself, Canterbury Tail talk 22:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It as a fairy uncontroversial move that doesn't need opinion, but per Canterbury Tail, you'll need admin help so could just approach one you know or prob better, start a thread at Wikipedia:Requested moves (also per CT). Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea I requested a Uncontroversial technical request on the Request Moves page. Thanks for the help. Cmap99 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I got distracted otherwise I could indeed have moved it for you. You're right, this is completely uncontroversial. Canterbury Tail talk 23:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:European Parliament constituencies in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:European Parliament constituencies in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 14 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

There has been an undiscussed move from Shane O'Neill (Irish chieftain) to Sean O'Neill (Irish chieftain) (not, to note, "Seán"), with attendant changes of name throughout the article, including to quotes. From the rendering in refs and from the fact that in move discussions on the talk page, the issue was not the rendering of the first name but what to put in parenthesis after the full name, I assume "Shane" is the customary rendering for this individual, in English. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It was quickly moved back and the edits were reverted. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism on Fenian Rising article

Please be aware that there is ongoing vandalism at Fenian Rising. See the discussion at Talk:Fenian Rising#Killed on the day (5 march 1867). --Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Access to Irish newspaper sources

Hi. Does anyone have access to Irish newspaper sources that may or may not help with this AfD? Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Scolaire (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ireland Portal Missing

There is no portal for Ireland, as P:IRL relates specifically to the island. It's absence is conspicuous from the "Related portals" section of that portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashew.wheel (talk • contribs) 16:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT Xx78900 (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy to do the grunt work on it.

Before starting though, I believe it would be much clearer if "Portal:Ireland" was moved to "Portal:Island Of Ireland" and the shortcuts P:ÉIRE and P:IRL being made available for use with the new portal. It would be great to get consensus on such changes. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What would go into your proposed new Portal:Ireland that isn't already in the current Portal:Ireland? Creating a new portal to effectively mirror an existing one (with a few topics removed), and changing the name and shortcuts for the existing portal, just for the sake of being able to say "the name of the 26-county state is Ireland", seems utterly pointless to me. Portals are on the way out anyway; they are very infrequently updated and probably very rarely used. Scolaire (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I too question the value portals bring to the site (a lot like Doras.ie they're very 1996), so discussing the merit of creating one is wise. Many articles (such as Politics of the Republic of Ireland) link to the portal as if it is for Ireland (country) rather than Ireland (island), even Portal:Republic of Ireland incorrectly redirects to P:IRL (not because of the name, but because it suggests the island and country are the same). Perhaps cleaning up those articles to unlink the portal would be an alternative solution.

It feels like the historial mixed use of P:IRL resulted in the omission of a distinct portal for the country. Adding a seperate portal now would be for the sake of completeness, with it's content and design evolving over time. Just as the Northern Ireland portal is distinct, so too would the portal for the Republic Of Ireland. Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Scolaire. The existing P:IRL has only had one (technical) edit so far this year. Readers don't read them, & editors don't edit them. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cashew.wheel: You haven't answered the key question: what would go into your proposed new Portal:Ireland that isn't already in the current Portal:Ireland? I would oppose creating a redundant portal just "for the sake of completeness". Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. You may or may not be interested in this AfD, as the subject was born in Belfast in 1900. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Saoirse McHugh

FYI, Saoirse McHugh, who the subject of a lengthy deletion discussion, 2 years ago, has been re-created. Spleodrach (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

For sure still fails WP:POLITICIAN. Has never held a political position. ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Failing WP:POLITICIAN does not mean she fails WP:GNG. I have contested the speedy deletion with links to sources that provide signifcant coverage of McHugh from reliable sources independent of the subject, as required by the general notability guidelines. And I have specifically provided links to articles which discuss things other than her previous electoral coverage, as that was considered not to justify her article at the previous AfD. Please respond to me at her talk page. And respond to my argument before deleting the page. Thank you. Xx78900 (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Year in Ireland pages, post-partition. Are they about the whole island, or not?

We've got inconsistencies across the post-partition "Year in Ireland" pages. Some have Northern Ireland info in them, while others don't. Are they to be about the island? or about what's now the republic? GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's about the whole island. Sarah777 (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Crinkill Barracks

As I have general interest in planned/estate towns, I have been considering how to improve the article on articles relating to Birr, County Offaly. That brought me to Crinkill Barracks and a potential issue with the naming of the article. There have been no replies to my post on the talk page, so I wanted to post it here to see if anyone else has any thoughts on this? Pinging @Dormskirk: as they have made reference to the naming issue in an edit summary. Smirkybec (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi - Thanks for the ping. I support the move to Birr Barracks and have now commented on the article talk page. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Smirkybec: I disagree with Dormskirk so perhaps the Irish sources would be better for deciding the name. For instance the Inventory of Architectural Heritage will guide you. You can alway refer to the Birr barracks name in the lede and create a redirect to the current article. That checks all the boxes. BTW, the one sentence lede is too short. ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ww2censor: Having consulted with the head of the NIAH a number of years ago on incorporating the sites listed into Wiki Loves Monuments, I would be slightly less inclined to use them as the final authority. If you look at how they list buildings that have shops, banks, or other offices based in them, the NIAH record will often list the business name as the name of the record - which leads to records like "Value4u" and "The Great Mobile Accessories Shop" as just two very quick examples. The NIAH records are not a definitive source on the buildings, but more an indicative record for the buildings included. I would also point to the more recent research done on the barracks by local historians, who appear to use Birr Barracks as reflected in the recent news articles. Smirkybec (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Smirkybec: I have no strong feelings either way and won't be upset whatever you decide, but the local descriptor, even if you dismiss NIAH, seems better to me as I mentioned. ww2censor (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ww2censor, I don't really have a horse in this race as I don't really know anything about it, but I'm wondering why you feel that Crinkill Barracks is the local descriptor? A quick google search to me indicates that a lot of local sources refer to it as Birr Barracks, but I am open to being wrong here, as as I say, I am completely ignorant of the subject at hand. Xx78900 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Xx78900 Google search is not the be all and end all considering it really only looks for current online instances. Older book lookup should also be considered. As I said it's my opinion that you can follow or not as you choose. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Google Books Ngram Viewer says simply "Ngrams not found: Crinkill Barracks". That's pretty definitive for "older books" as well as modern usage. The article should be moved to Birr Barracks. --Scolaire (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Irish Times and Irish Independent on Wikipedia and Irish Supreme Court cases

Two articles today from the Irish Times and the Independent about a project I have been working on for the last several years. Great to see Wikipedia getting some attention in Ireland.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/irish-judges-are-relying-on-wikipedia-when-writing-judgments-study-finds-41870135.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2022/07/27/wikipedia-articles-20-more-likely-to-influence-legal-reasoning-of-irish-judges-scientists-find/

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: I came here after seeing the The Irish Times article.

The report is a bit alarmist, but on careful reading it does not suggest that there is any problem of quality or bias in thee Wikipedia articles; just a fear that the articles could later be corrupted.

I am also unpersuaded by the finding of a 20% greater likelihood of a case with a Wikipedia article being cited. That seems to me to be too small a divergence to be statistically significant, because it could be accounted for by a very small lack of randomness in the sampling. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I posted this elsewhere: Yes, the media coverage is missing a bit of nuance (shocker). The issue is not that the articles are poor quality, they are not bad to some quite strong; the issue is that the judges use the articles on Wikipedia for precedent rather than other cases that perhaps are as applicable/relevant but could lead to different legal conclusions or arguments but are not on Wikipedia. I am trying to get a link to the study that is open. I will post here when I have it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Link to the study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4174200 AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Michael Lennon (judge)

I have not been active in Wikipedia for some time You might remember me. I am posting this in requested articles It is a nearly completed article. Rather than using my user space I will use normal [WP:MAINSPACE] that way we can all contribute. Thanks to all. Lugnad (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 I will start a stub for  Michael Lennon (judge) Lugnad (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)  Lugnad 

@Lugnad: so wonderful to see you on Wikipedia again - you might remember me from early Wikimedia Community Ireland activities a few years ago. I'd be happy to lend a hand on getting a stub/start started. Smirkybec (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

that is very kind of you and is appreciated. Lugnad (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to start a draft in your userspace, or do you want to start a stub and I can wade in? Smirkybec (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Whichever you do, the article should be at Michael Lennon (judge), not Justice Michael Lennon. --Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Autocomplete Search Results For "Ireland" Do Not List "Republic Of Ireland" Article

When a user searches for the word "Ireland" using any of the in-page search boxes (across desktop and mobile), the article for "Republic Of Ireland" is not included in the auto completed search results. It's a common use case for a user to search for a country by its name, Ireland, however they are not able to easily find the article using search unless they use the term "Republic Of Ireland", which may be unintuitive to the user. As a relatively new editor I am only learning policies, markup, templates etc and don't know how to resolve this issue. Can the community help to fix the search behaviour and make the article for the country of Ireland more discoverable to users? Cashew.wheel (talk) Cashew.wheel (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

And if a reader does arrive at Ireland do they not see the explanatory hatnote that states: This article is about the island in Europe. For the sovereign state of the same name, see Republic of Ireland. For the part of the United Kingdom, see Northern Ireland. For other uses, see Ireland (disambiguation)? If they can't understand that maybe they should not even be reading an encyclopaedia. ww2censor (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s, as you have stated, an autocomplete system. That means it searches to complete what wildcards may come after what you type to complete it. Autocomplete systems do not wildcard before what you type that’s completely against their design. Anyway there’s nothing anyone on this project can do with something that’s an intrinsic part of the mediawiki software system, it is not about Ireland or any other article. Canterbury Tail talk 02:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ww2censor. No matter how new a user you are, if you type "Ireland" and you're brought to the Ireland page and it's not the page you want, there's a link to the ROI page at the very top. If you have page preview enabled, even hovering over the link will show "Ireland, also known as the Republic of Ireland, is a country...". Any user can easily find the article using search. There's no need to re-write the software to fix a problem that isn't actually a problem. Scolaire (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

And by the way, if you type "Ireland" followed by a bracket, one of the drop-down results is Ireland (country), which is a redirect to ROI, so it's not true that searching for the country will never find it. Scolaire (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that Cashew.wheel's editing history is almost entirely them pushing this view. Couple dozen edits, almost all of them removing mentions to the phrase "Republic of Ireland".Xx78900 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. While I don’t mind them changing just textual mentions of Republic of Ireland to just Ireland (as long as there are no mentions of Northern Ireland or the island around), removing the links to Republic of Ireland|Ireland is actually creating the situation they’re complaining against. Removing peoples ability to get to the correct article through helpful links while quoting the IMOS which is going against the spirit of it. It’s becoming disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 11:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're referring to a number of edits I made to schools based in Ireland, where I removed links I had previously added. This was to work around a bug in {{Infobox school}} which has since been fixed, hence the reverts. The {{Infobox school}} template requests to use plaintext for Country due to WP:OVERLINK and other WP:IE editors also advised me to remove links here and here Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I know that the WP:IE members can't change core parts of mediawiki but as more seasoned editors I thought you folks might be aware of template attributes/options etc that could improve the discoverability of the article.

To that end, I think @Scolaire has brought up an interesting point, that searching for "Ireland (" does return Republic Of Ireland in the autocomplete box, thanks to the redirect page Ireland (country). Perhaps could including semantic data like {{Infobox country}} in the redirect page, before the #REDIRECT, make the search results more user friendly? Cashew.wheel (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hello members of WikiProject Ireland. I just wanted to let everyone know there is now a barnstar available for this project, see Template:The Ireland Barnstar.

Judekkan (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I think @Antiqueight created one at one point as well, perhaps trying to have one that could cover topics relating to the island of Ireland? Smirkybec (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. While the sentiment is great, the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland is geographical. "All island". Both jurisdictions. Rather than political. One jurisdiction. A barnstar which is geographical in nature, rather than political in nature (like one flag), would perhaps be more representative of the project scope. Even one of the existing all-green barnstars might be an option. Maybe. Guliolopez (talk)

Agreed! Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well, one with the flag of the state of Ireland doesn't actually represent the entire project which is the island in general. Canterbury Tail talk 11:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There are a couple of existing awards: The Ireland Barnstar of National Merit

and this barnstar @Antiqueight: created last year

	The Irish Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work on Irish topics...

I think this use of St Patrick's blue and the harp is less political and more reflective of the island of Ireland? I did create a page to note those awarded the barnstar, should people wish to award it to anyone: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Awards Smirkybec (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The harp on a blue background is very reminiscent of the flag of the President Of Ireland. Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Changing it to green would make it the flag of Leinster though. Unless there are any other suggestions? Smirkybec (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

How about just a green outline of the island as the background? Or the symbol of the four provinces? Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

A class

As we don't use the article class A, should we delete it from the top of this page? Sarah777 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Those results are created by a template. We have never used an A-class rating as we don't have a system in place to do that. I've asked at Template talk:Articles by Quality if it is possible to exclude a class. ww2censor (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement over article title

I recently changed the title of what was Miosgán Mhaedhbha to Queen Maedhbh's Tomb. While I'm not sure if the exact title I chose was the correct one, User:Kodai disagrees with me that it was the right choice to change it from Irish to English. Would appreciate somebody weighing in on the talk page on either side so we can get a consensus. Thanks. Xx78900 (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move Muine Bheag → Bagenalstown

If anyone wants to weigh in on this requested move. ~ Ablaze (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Counties of Leix and Offaly Act 1556#Requested move 8 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Counties of Leix and Offaly Act 1556#Requested move 8 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Cawley

If Thomas Cawley is noteworthy (and he may be, for all I know), then the short article about him fails utterly to demonstrate this. -- Hoary (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The article was created by User:Fergananim. If you look at his talk page, you will see there are 75 separate sections with the word "deletion" in the heading. He meant well, poor man. Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that he died in 1949, he's unlikely to be the same Thomas Cawley, but you never know... Xx78900 (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hoary likes this.

Article on the Burke Family

I want to write an article on the controversial Burke family from Castlebar I have enough sources that I think it should easily clear the GNG, but what I'm looking for is guidance on the article title. Currently Burke Family redirects to House of Burgh, while Burke family redirects to Political families of Australia (so I should probably fix that too...). I suppose a disambiguation page is in order? Thanks in advance. Xx78900 (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. RE:

• WP:DAB. As you note, the solution to the multiple-meaning/redirect issue(s) is probably just a DAB page. In honesty, and based on your description of the existing arrangement and even if a new article wasn't created, it seems likely that a DAB page is probably in order anyway.
• WP:NN. I agree. There is probably enough SIGCOV to support a claim to notability.
• WP:BLP. Notwithstanding that an article could be warranted (on notability grounds), anyone contributing to that article would really need to be extra/extra/extra conscious of the WP:ATP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1E, WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE guidelines and norms. Personally I think achieving and maintaining NPOV might be a struggle.

My 2 centimes anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If you make the article on please post an update. I anticipate an active talk page. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui@Guliolopez Just an update that the page, Burke family (Castlebar) is now live. I have probably created a bit of headache for us, but I think they've cropped up in the public eye enough times now to warrant an article. It doesn't yet cover Simeon or Jemima's major bits yet, but I've done a fair bit on the other siblings. I tried my best to be balanced, though I recognise that Simeon's debating wins may not be considered notable enough to warrant inclusion. Let me know if ye have any suggestions, and please remove anything you find objectionable. It's also uncategorised, I'm not sure what to put there - any suggestions? Xx78900 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Categories for pre-partition Ireland - useful or not?

I have had discussions with a new user @Privybst: See here. Probably best to have the discussion here as it more wider ranging and touches on policy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't find these pre-partition Ireland categories useful. We know when pre-partition Ireland ends, but does it begin? Spleodrach (talk)

I want to note that at least two categories for pre-partition Ireland were created long before me: Category:Politics of pre-partition Ireland and Category:Political office-holders in pre-partition Ireland. Privybst (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

they were created by @The Tom Privybst (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Kingdom of Ireland has been nominated for discussion

Category:Kingdom of Ireland has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Privybst (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Ulster loyalism has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ulster loyalism has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Privybst (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Move Categories - NUI Galway → University of Galway

The National University of Ireland. Galway has renamed itself University of Galway and the main article has been updated accordingly. Could an editor with sufficient access please move the associated NUI Galway categories to the new name? Or is there another process an autoconfirmed user can follow to move them? Cashew.wheel (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC about naming "Soldier F" in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article

An RfC about naming "Soldier F" in the Bloody Sunday (1972) article is open here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Twelve Bens

I'd be very grateful if other editors could weigh in on this discussion. Thanks. ~Asarlaí 21:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

POV edits

After reverting this by a new editor, I think somebody with more energy & knowlege than me might check his other edits. Thanks if you do. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Here are his edits to The Troubles in Northern Ireland (1920–1922). Palisades1, Asarlaí, and Mabuska are major contributors to that article, so they might know what to do with them. His edits to Resistance movement don't look especially POV. Scolaire (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Gort

I am severely worried about what is going on on the article Gort. With local places of interest half an hour drive away (what would bring everything in Ennis and Galway into its remit) and removal of maintenance templates and sources. I hope more people can take a look there, as I am concerned. The Banner talk 21:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Affordability of housing in the Republic of Ireland

I have been thinking about starting an article on the Irish housing market, similar to Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom, but have been a bit intimidated so far. Is there anyone else that might be interested in working on a draft? It occurs to me that Homelessness in Ireland probably could do with work as well. Any thoughts or interest in helping out? Smirkybec (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Its a good idea, but start at least with the early 80s low prices/high interest rates era; with the mid 60s social housing builds as a preamble. Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan! I'll let you know how I get on. Smirkybec (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Were the Easter Rising leaders criminals?

An editor has recently added the sub-module Infobox criminal to the 1916 Easter Rising leaders infoboxes. This now lists their "Criminal status", "Conviction(s)" and "Criminal penalty". See James Connolly, Tom Clarke (Irish republican), Patrick Pearse, Thomas MacDonagh and many more. Is this appropriate for Irish revolutionaries? Spleodrach (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't see a criminal infobox on Napoleon Bonaparte, Samuel Adams or Nelson Mandela, don't see why it would apply to Easter 1916. Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

All I did was add an appropriate infobox used in conjunction with other persons who were tried, convicted, and sentenced for similar crimes in similar circumstances. I noted the bizarre omission while editing a list article. Whether or not one likes the convict or approves of his motives is immaterial to the factual matter at hand. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela was also convicted of high treason, will you be adding the criminal infobox to his article too? Cashew.wheel (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why it should not be on there. I am not making any moral judgement here. I'm simply listing notable and relevant facts. Many political figures have that infobox on their articles when it is relevant. I'm not trying to push any particular point of view. Wikipedia exists to inform, not as a platform for idolisation or demonisation. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like POV-pushing to me, but a bolder term would also fit. I suggest reverting it. The Banner talk 17:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC) But perhaps User:TheCurrencyGuy has a valid reason to do this.

Ooooh this is actually a tough one. One person's criminal is anothers freedom fighter and all that. However they were actually tried under the laws of the land, and convicted under those laws with punishment enforced so technically and legally yes they were. Should we be classifying them as such, different debate, but we shouldn't be ignoring this and pretending it wasn't against a government no matter what you think of that government. As an encyclopaedia we shouldn't just take one view of these people that would actually against our goals. Taken dispassionately from afar, it's kinda accurate and does in fact add legitimate encyclopaedic information to the infobox that is actually useful for the infobox. So in two minds about it. Is there a better infobox that can convey the information in a different manner? Don't know. I'm a little surprised this editor has moved into this area. Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The act of waging war against the government is considered a serious offence in all legal jurisdictions. By definition this completely justifies the "criminal conviction" section. Whether or not someone approves or disapproves of a historical person and whether or not he considers their actions justified or unjustified is purely a matter of opinion, I added the "criminal conviction" tag to the infoboxes of persons who were convicted according to law by a legally convened court (albeit a military one) by a recognised legal government. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think this one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate. A conviction is not necessarily a significant point in a person's biography, and does not automatically garner it real estate in an infobox. Before you go about making this change on many articles, you should start a discussion and gather consensus for it, particularly in touchy areas like Irish nationalism (WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES). -M.nelson (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Problem is the convictions here are significant, it's why they were executed. In general I'd agree, but in these instances the conviction and execution by the state are fairly significant. Canterbury Tail talk 21:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at James Connolly for example, I do agree that the charge and execution are relevant, but the labels "Criminal status" and "Criminal penalty" don't align with the tone and content of the article. If we aren't describing the subject as a criminal in the article, we shouldn't be doing it in the infobox. -M.nelson (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Canterbury Tail talk 00:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the tricky issue. Connolly was a person who was tried, convicted, and sentenced for a specific crime, the crime of violent insurrection, which is defined in law as treason; which is still the highest criminal offence in the Republic of Ireland to-day and was punishable by execution until the abolition of capital punishment. If Pearse, Connolly et. al. were alive now and carried out the same acts they were executed for they would similarly be sentenced and imprisoned. There is a stark contrast between a legally convened court trial or court-martial (as in this case) and summary execution (as in the case of figures such as Benito Mussolini or Muammar Gadaffi). Previously the articles seemed to imply there was no charge or trial. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Per the {{Infobox Criminal}} doc, "This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals.", due to it's impact on WP:NPOV.

Given that context, I don't think it's use on the articles in question is correct.

Mentioning their convection for high treason etc in the body of the article (not necessarily the lede) should be sufficient. Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This is pussyfooting around the issue. A great many political figures have been convicted of politically-motivated crimes and even been executed for them and their articles include the "criminal conviction" infobox. There is no reason why these individuals should have special treatment over, say, Guy Fawkes or William Joyce, both of whom still have their defenders. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is clearly for use with persons who satisfies WP:NOTE by either a singular crime or life as a career criminal.

If they are not commonly primarily known for the crime for which they were convicted of, then {{Infobox Criminal}} shouldn't be used, just like how neither the articles for Jesus nor Martha Stewart use it. Guy Fawkes is primarily known for his attempt to blow up the Palace of Westminster and subsequent conviction.

Given that context the leaders of the 1916 Rising are notable for their involvement in Irish Republicanism and waging war against the British Empire. While convicted of a crime which should be mentioned in the body of the article, they are not notable as criminals and it would not be a neutral POV to present them as such. Cashew.wheel (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

But one cannot distinguish between "waging war against the British Empire" and being "convicted of a crime", it isn't like adding offences a person committed which are not relevant to their historical notability to an infobox. The reason they are notable is that they committed and were executed for an offence. I would argue it is strongly POV to deny this aspect in the infobox. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"The reason they are notable is that they committed and were executed for an offence" - if this is what you truly believe, then it confirms The Banner's suspicion above that this is simple POV-pushing. If you aren't able to see the different POVs and edit with nuance then I don't think a contentious area like Irish Nationalism is for you. -M.nelson (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in the topic, I simply wished to introduce a valid and informative section for the benefit of readers after I noticed the infoboxes lacked relevant information which is included in the infoboxes of comparable persons. Infoboxes are not moral judgements of persons, they exist to give a quick overview of the notable facts of a person's life. and when that person's life ended in execution after being tried and convicted of a specific offence then those are pertinent facts a reader should immediately have at his disposal. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No way to read this other than pointy POV-pushing. Agree with Cashew.wheel, M.Nelson and The Banner - 'criminal' infobox is in no way appropriate for these articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. While the information is important in some cases, and in some way should possibly be in the infobox at least for some of the articles as it's pretty notable, the infobox criminal is most likely not the correct way of doing it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other options? I actually decided to add it while editing a list article and noticed that that infobox was used on the articles of other political figures who were executed. If it is valid for, say, Nicolae Ceausescu, Guy Fawkes, and William Joyce why not here? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The clear intent of all these edits is to paint Volunteer and ICA members (and later IRA members) as common criminals (see this edit using "mass murder" in the short description, infobox and categories). Per M.nelson, the edits don't align with the tone and content of the article. And per Cashew.wheel, the infobox (or infobox module) "is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals." TheCurrencyGuy says he has "no interest in the topic". I would ask him to respect the consensus of those editors who do have an interest, and were involved in writing these articles. I have reverted all the contentious edits. Please do not restore them unless and until there is a clear consensus to do so. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I was editing the list of people who were executed article.

Do you deny a person found guilty and executed for mass murder was.... a mass murderer? This is bizarre logic. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I must commend Scolaire for very neatly summarising the consensus here. Undoubtedly, it is the correct decision. Finnegas (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Just because a person is convicted of an offence (as it is the only tool at hand for the state to prosecute), from an NPOV does not necessarily make them "that thing". Other factors such as circumstance, military service or other factors in context can change how they are perceived. i.e. soldiers are not considered serial killers nor air force pilots who drop bombs considered mass murderers.

I understand that you have a wish to document what you perceive as the facts on these articles, however I think you're totally missing the nuance in the subject and unaware of the implicit bias that those technical facts bring. As Scolaire touched on above, by blindly classifying these people by the offence for which they were convicted, you are re-framing the article to cast them as common criminals (which can be perceived as pushing a POV) rather than as the political/revolutionary/separatist actors for which they are known. Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So will you be lobbying for removing the "criminal conviction" infobox from the articles of Nicolae Ceausescu, Guy Fawkes, William Joyce, and Nazis executed for war crimes? Because that is the angle I was approaching it from and why I decided to add it. I am analysing these individuals dispassionately as historical human beings holding them to the same standard as comparable historical people. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me the only new piece of information added by these infoboxes (for the ones I looked at, anyway) that aren't in the previous one is that the individuals were executed by the state. This is a relevant piece of information (I think there is general agreement on that). Is there a way to include that fact in an infobox without using the criminal one? -R. fiend (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

My final statement will be this:

If being dispassionately factual about historical people who are long dead offends your feelings, then this wikiproject has catastrophically failed in its mission. This is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopaedia to factually inform readers, not to act as a place of pilgrimage for fringe ideologues.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's about NPOV. Is there any information your edits add to the article that isn't in there already? I don't see any, and if that's the case I don't think you have much to complain about. -R. fiend (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Careful, TCG. You've been making a reasonable argument, but drifting toward "fringe ideologues" doesn't usually take you to a useful place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that saying a person convicted of, say, murder was "not a murderer" is a fringe viewpoint, that is what I meant.

I consider it eccentric that historical individuals are being treated with kid gloves. I understand in the case of living people where libel laws and such apply. But I do not consider it controversial to note that Dead Person A was tried, convicted and sentenced for Action B when that is a major part of what they are notable for. For instance Peter Barnes and James McCormick were brought up earlier, they are solely notable for the fact they were executed for killing 5 people and wounding more, that is considered a serious offence by all criminal jurisdictions and it is highly POV to omit that. Just because they were part of an organisation which considered itself a government does not detract from their having been tried, convicted, and sentenced in a civilian court of law as civilians guilty of a civilian crime.

At present the lede for Barnes says nothing about why he is a notable person, it merely gives a brief biography completely omitting the notable part of his life. It would be rather like the lede and short description of John F. Kennedy's article not mentioning that he was the President of the United States. In what way is Barnes a notable person save for his conviction and execution? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this your final, final statement, then? "Fringe ideologues" - seriously? Pilgrimage? Well... yeah, for some, I guess? :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Try to keep to the facts at hand. I had a moment of pique because this bind is extremely frustrating. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be fixated with these people being notable for being convicted and executed for a crime. Barnes was notable not for being executed, but for his participation in the IRA's sabotage campaign in the 1930s. The conviction and execution are footnotes.

Sorry to rehash the analogy, but based on your blindness to the nuance and context of these historical figures, I half expect your next edit to be updating the short description of Jesus to "Nazarene carpenter, convicted and executed for treason". Including that fact that they were tried and executed in the article is not in dispute (and cases where reference to the trial is missing should be rectified), but focusing so heavily on the crime and punishment angle is just misleading. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If Barnes was more notable for the campaign than his conviction and execution then why are the so-called "footnotes" longer than the thing you consider him notable for? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Sticking to the facts at hand", please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the Barnes article is so badly written that you can't tell from the lead why he was notable, then that's a problem with that article - which you can fix!. It is, however, not relevant to the articles on Connolly, Clarke, Pearse, McDonagh, et al. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Usually, the infobox criminal (or what the name is) is used for people notable because of their criminal career. The way you use it, it can be used for every person that is once convicted for speeding or careless driving (like Michael Heseltine), regardless of what makes them really notable. The Banner talk 16:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

So would you also be in favour of removing it from the infoboxes of other executed persons? Such as, say, Guy Fawkes? TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, TheCurrencyGuy - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to debate whether Mr Fawke's bio should include the criminal infobox, have that discussion, by all means. On the Guy Fawkes page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you fail to get the point of this discussion, THG. The Banner talk 17:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand the kid gloves mentality. I am not attempting to impart any biases, only to align with known fact. I do have my own opinions on deceased political leaders (though the ones in question are not ones I am strongly opinionated on beyond wishing to correctly categorise them), but I am trying not to cloud my conduct with them. I believe it is the duty of an encyclopaedia editor to introduce as much relevant fact to the table as possible and allow the reader to make up his own mind about the subject on the basis of the facts given without trying to whiten or blacken the subject, the raw information provided should do all the talking.

The statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" means nothing to me, it is perfectly possible for a man to be both. If one thinks the information provided is unbalanced one can bring more to the table to counterbalance it if it is encyclopaedic, sweeping away material or becoming nervous about the categories used for fear of treading on the toes of the easily offended is censorship, not nuance. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop with the "kid gloves"! Nobody is pampering these people; what they did and how they died is stated in the article. Nobody is arguing for changing the facts. What we're disputing is edits to the infobox, and if there is a consensus that it doesn't go in the infobox, then it doesn't go in. And by the way, adding a "criminal" module to the infobox is an attempt to impart bias, viz., that these people were on a par with Jack the Ripper or Fred West. Scolaire (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

One could equally say that it is bias to consider petty theft on par with human trafficking. Noting that a law was broken and a guilty verdict was passed by a legally convened court is not bias. A convict's motive, be they monetary, self-gratification or political, is not relevant to their categorisation. Also, jack the Ripper and Fred West are bad examples, neither of those people were ever convicted. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

That nicely illustrates your problem. A criminal, for you, is someone who has been convicted of a crime. You can rape, torture, mutilate and murder young women, and still be a fine, upstanding citizen! Unlike the petty thief! That's rubbish. Of course Jack the Ripper and Fred West were criminals! Many things are relevant to a person's categorisation: not just their motive, not even just what they were charged with, but the context of the act, who is trying them, what law they are tried under, etc. How about WP:Verifiability? There are many books by authoritative authors on the people under discussion here, and none of them call them criminals. Scolaire (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I doubt the victims of any murderer particularly care about the murderer's motive. "Oh the man who shot me was doing it because he wanted a political goal? That's alright then". If you consider Peter Barnes a "fine upstanding citizen" then there is nothing more to say, you are biased, and yet you have ingratiated yourself into Wikipedia and are untouchable. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You're just rambling at this stage. Scolaire (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

And I would be in favour of taking this from the infobox of Nicolae Ceausescu, Guy Fawkes and William Joyce, for the same reason. Scolaire (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, is there a solution in which we can include the charge and penalty then? Because then I will be able to set about modifying other infoboxes. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of one off the top of my head. If you're serious about wanting to modify them you could ask on the talk pages of those articles, or at the Teahouse. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Jesus. No. You are a minority of one, here, and will never win consensus, for the many valid reasons outlined by multiple editors. Step away from dead horse. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• I have read most of the discussion and feel that both sides have valid points. Adding a criminal infobox definitely seems like a WP:NPOV issue. If some people see the person as a criminal, and others don't, then by adding the infobox we are taking sides. I would say the use of that box should be restricted only to those individuals who (a) derive their notability from the crime they allegedly committed and (b) do not have any significant mention of defenders in WP:RS.VR _talk 11:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• Egregious POV pushing. There is no consensus for it to go in the infobox. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
• There is clearly a competency issue here. How can it be treason if they are now seen as fundamental in establishing the modern state (said by somebody that doesn't romanticise the political era). Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  It was against a different state, the United Kingdom. In fairness all revolutionaries are treasonous against the current state in an attempt to create a different one. Canterbury Tail talk 23:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thats my point :) CurrencyGuy seems to be stuck in CORRECTVERSION, locked into a specific point intime; ie the specific date of conviction rather than the wider context. Ceoil (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• This is blatant POV pushing. A criminal infobox gives WP:UNDUE prominence to an outdated British view of its former colony. I see that the POV-pusher has been blocked, but if there is any renewed attempt at this I suggest that the status quo ante should be upheld unless an RFC establishes a consensus to uphold the imperialist view that freedom fighter must be branded as a criminal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
• It's does look like consensus has been established against the use of {{Infobox criminal}}. The same infobox is also in use on Kevin Barry and some of the other Forgotten Ten. Those articles should fall under the scope of this consensus. Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Spleodrach has removed the Criminal modules from all of those infoboxes, and I have now moved them to their proper place in List of people who were executed. --Scolaire (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as being a real NPOV problem. High treason is a criminal act in British law and many, if not almost all, countries laws. Whilst I understand The Banner's points, high treason is a highly notable criminal offence compared to a speeding conviction. It is notable and if they were convicted of it then it should be included due to the nature of it. POV shouldn't even come in to it. In a similar vein I would suggest its use in articles of loyalist and republican paramilitaries convicted of serious crimes. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Two articles that need to be merged

Carrignamuck Tower House is the same castle as Dripsey Castle, Carrignamuck. They need to be merged, haven't the time at present to do so. Xx78900 (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. While the articles could be clearer (and the use of the same image in both articles doesn't help matters), the two subjects are not the same. They cover two different buildings. Specifically:

• Carrignamuck Tower House (sometimes known as "Dripsey Castle") is a 15th century tower house. (A medieval "castle"). This one
• Dripsey Castle, Carrignamuck (now more commonly "Dripsey Castle") is an 18th century country house. (A "stately home"). This one.

While the two buildings are less than 150m apart, and form part of the same estate, that doesn't mean they are the same or should automatically be covered in the same article.

(It was fairly common for estate/landowners to "move out" of their old draughty castles (which prioritised defence over comfort) in the 18th and 19th centuries. And "move in" to a new modern manor house (often nearby and having the same or a similar name). Elsewhere within Cork, Blarney Castle and Blarney House come to mind. As do Dunboy Castle and Dunboy Mansion. Or Dundanion Castle and Dundanion House.)

While there may be an argument for covering the two buildings in the same article, if only to address any apparent confusion, it is not really accurate to say that they are "the same castle"... They are distinct buildings. Built hundreds of years (and a perhaps a hundred yards) apart. Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment To confirm, the Record of Monuments and Places gives

• the tower house (15th C) as "CO072-019----"
• the country house (18th C) as "CO072-018----"

See RMP County Cork Vol.1 (sheets 1-78). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah my mistake. Thanks for the clarification. Xx78900 (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Some help identifying sources

Hi all, bit of a strange one. I came across Molana Abbey today, and the user @Tomh903 referenced a lot of sources by author name, without listing the books. And where books have been listed, he didn't include page numbers. I want to correct this. I've left a message at his talk page, but he's largely inactive these days - one edit this year, in July, and only 7 in 2021, 6 of which were in March. I'm heading to the library today and will add page numbers to sources where I can, but any help with identifying what texts these might be referring to would be greatly appreciated.

• "See Sir James Ware, pages 195–196." - Presumably this is The Antiquities and History of Ireland ?
• "This hypothesis is discussed by Peter O'Dwyer on page 37. The corresponding entries in the annals are U609.1 at the Annals of Ulster or M605.3 at the Annals of the Four Masters. The date has been corrected according to the table work of Daniel P. Mc Carthy: The Chronology of the Irish Annals , 1998 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 98C, pages 203–255." - No idea who this O'Dwyer chap is, and google isn't cooperating with me.
• See page 143 by Patrick Power in the essay from 1932. The entry M819.4 in the Annals of the Four Masters refers to Dairinis in Wexford, as Patrick Power also points out. This is also implicitly an answer to the corresponding statement in the article by Flood, emanating from a busy raid. - So Power has released two publications in this year Críchad an Chaoilli: being the topography of ancient Fermoy and Ardmore: its founder and early Christian memorials. I can access Ardmore, but not Críchad, and though I haven't had the chance to fully read Ardmore yet, it being pages 1-26 doesn't fill me with confidence.

The rest are easily findable, and I hope to rectify as many of them as I can later today. Thanks in advance if anyone can fill me in. Xx78900 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Local government in Dublin

I started an article on Local government in Dublin, currently still in draftspace. I think there's enough material and change over the last two centuries for it to warrant an article separate from Local government in the Republic of Ireland. Also, given the interaction and changes between city and counties in that time, it makes sense to do so for Dublin as a whole, rather than for example, providing further detail to pages like Dublin Corporation or Dublin County Council. At the moment, it is an outline, and somewhat primary-source dependent, so I'd welcome any input. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles Republic of Ireland - Ireland

Should the Republic of Ireland be shown in articles as "Ireland", "Republic of Ireland" or "[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]"? Is it mandatory to change any link to "Ireland" (unlinked) or Republic of Ireland to [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]? Or is it only useful when in improves clarity? Conform Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. The Banner talk 16:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• That's not a proper RfC question. Of course it's not mandatory to change links! But neither is it mandatory to revert the changes. Why don't you word the RfC to reflect the difference in opinion between yourself and another editor over whether and how the state should be linked? Scolaire (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC) comment not necessary as the question was changed.

For context, this discussion first arose at WT:IMOS] My understanding is that the consensus is that where the country of Ireland is mentioned in an article the norm is to apply WP:IRE-IRL rather than the exception. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Follow the Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles (aka WP:IRE-IRL) i.e. Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context. In such circumstances use "Republic of Ireland"...If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
  • So the form is mandatory, but not the linking itself? I.e. unlinked can stay unlinked? The Banner talk 08:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know where you're getting this "mandatory" from. Nothing is mandatory. IMOS states the recommended form, and the recommendations represent a consensus of editors over the last 17 years. Whether and how the recommendations should be followed is what this RfC is about. Scolaire (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

We've (for years) done it as [Republic of Ireland|Ireland], for the country. How it's done, is irrelevant to me. What is relevant, is that we apply the same solution consistently. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Aviajet nominated for deletion

For your information: the stub article for the Irish charter broker/virtual airline Aviajet has been nominated for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. If you wish, you may contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviajet. Thank you. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC over whether or not James Joyce should have an infobox

Talk:James Joyce § Should the article have an infobox I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

East Wall and Fermoy protests

Wanted to bring this article to the attention of the WikiProject, as it would probably benefit from more eyes now and as the story evolves. @Bastun @Spleodrach and @Scolaire might be interested? Smirkybec (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I avoid evolving stories if I can. Scolaire (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, thanks. Too much emotion involved over the back of others. And earlier experiences with such incidents in counties Galway and Mayo quickly turned into POV-pushing. I stay away. The Banner talk 12:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC) I do have one question: notable or an incident?

Governments of Ireland: organisation of pages

I have a proposal at Talk:Government of the 33rd Dáil#Split by government that pages for each government should be organised by formally separate government from December 1922, rather than Dáil term. I proposed it several years ago, but it fell into the ether. It makes a lot of sense to me, but given where we are now, and the extent of changes required, it makes sense to get a broader discussion there (as prompted by Spleodrach to refer here). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Usage of the Duchas project as a primary source for folklore?

I am writing this here in order to try and get some form of consensus or guidance about how the Duchas Project should be treated in regards to a source for articles. Seeing as the project's scope is limited solely to Irish folklore this seems the most appropriate wiki project to post.

For those unaware Duchas is the name given to the 'National Folklore Collection' as undertaken by 'The Irish Folklore Commission' during the 1930's. The basis for the project was to preserve Irish folk traditions by asking students throughout the country to question their parents and grandparents about any folklore they knew and write it down, these responses were then taken and preserved by the Irish government and can be viewed today at duchas.ie

This project is quite invaluable to scholars of Irish folklore and referred to often when researching specific regions. However for the purposes of wikipedia I am unsure if it should be used as a primary source. What are others opinions, are these stories suitable to be referenced directly or should they only be mentioned when also used in secondary sources? Dubarr18 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Good question! I presume at least in part inspired by my removal of a "legend" from the River Shannon article, which claimed that the river was created by a monster fleeing to the sea when it heard that Saint Patrick was about to arrive in Ireland. I removed the content because - although the story may well have been told to the child in question, who passed it on in good faith - it doesn't even rate as a piseog, a common bit of folklore. I can find no other reference whatsoever to the Shannon only being created in the 5th century that aren't retellings of that one Duchas story. Not surprising, when there are dozens of piseoga, myths and legends about the goddess Sionna and other creation myths!

To answer your original question, the Duchas Project is a great resource and I'm currently really enjoying reading John Creedon's An Irish Folklore Treasury (which recounts many stories taken from the Duchas Project records). I would say it's fine to use as a secondary source; I would be doubtful about using it as a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Pages for municipal districts

Should municipal districts have their own page? I've suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundalk Municipal District (2nd nomination) that they should not. Unlike town councils and urban districts before them, municipal districts don't have a separate legal existence from the county-level local authority, but are subsidiary entities of the county council, an area committee, or local organisation of councillors for a specified part of the local government area. However, the question merits further discussion, and there isn't a clear consensus from the discussion in either direction, any contributions you might have would be welcome. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that they likely shouldn't, though perhaps some may be independently notable, the majority do not need a page of their own. Xx78900 (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion in other project

This discussion may be of interest to members of this project: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Taoiseach or Taoisigh (Fran Bosh --(talk) 21:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC))

County Template changes

An unregistered editor, Special:Contributions/80.233.63.184, has made a number of unsourced changes to Irish County templates today. Is there concensus on what population constitutes a village or town? Keomike (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether a settlement in Ireland is considered town or a village is, to my mind, best determined based on the classification applied by the local authority. Typically the county council. In the case of County Westmeath, for example, according to the Westmeath County Development Plan (2021-2027) Settlement Plans (Settlement Hierarchy), Kilbeggan and Kinnegad are (together with Castlepollard and Moate) classified as "self-sustaining growth towns". In the case of County Cork, for example, according to the settlement hierarchy published by the relevant local authority we find the classifications as "towns", "key villages" and "villages". Classifications vary between counties and authorities (and between versions of the county-level development plans and settlement-level local area plans). But, if there is doubt, I would defer to the local authority development plan or local area plan. Certainly over a personal opinion like "I think they are villages". The available references support the status quo and not this type of thing. Guliolopez (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

They've been blocked, so hopefully the question is moot. But agree with Guliolopez: go by what the local authorities say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Banagher

Banagher has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Galway W.F.C.#Requested move 27 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Galway W.F.C.#Requested move 27 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Mergers for two 2011 constituencies

There were two constituency names that were used only for the 31st Dáil (2011–2016): Kerry North–West Limerick (Dáil constituency) and Limerick (Dáil constituency) (at least for this area; there was a pre-1948 constituency of the whole city and county, also called Limerick). I have proposed merging KN-WL into Kerry North, and copying the material at Limerick into Limerick County. While related discussions, the strengths of the case might be different for each of them. The common principle here is that constituency pages benefit to the reader most by allowing them to compare with results before and after, so that a single result in isolation should be avoided. Using redirects, hatnotes, and the correct visible blue text allows us to be flexible enough to be precise when indicating a name change without requiring a separate page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Irish nationality law at FAC

Hi all, the article is at FAC,[6] but not attracting reviews. Given citizenship is such a hot topic now, it probably deserves more attention, fact checks etc, if anyone has the time. I've supported on quality of writing and sources, but regards content, there are quite a few people here than could review for accuracy/bias etc. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Template:UK place

There is a discussion at Template:UK place that may be of interest to editors here. Canterbury Tail talk 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for a meet-up

Hi, folks! I have put out the proposal for the meep-up. If anyone is interested, please, let me know. Thanks. Renvoy (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm cross-posting here, in case it's missed on the meet-up page. I'd be up for it if others are, though my time next week is limited enough. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Lists about Ireland for an article contest on Ukrainian Wikipedia

Hi all, @AntonProtsiuk (WMUA) from Wikimedia Ukraine has been in touch with me as a Project Coordinator of Wikimedia Community Ireland about consulting on a list of 100 articles about Irish topics as part of their CEE Spring writing campaign on Ukrainian Wikipedia. A list would look similar to like this one about Ukraine on UkWiki. I have pointed him to the articles rated as of Top importance (64 articles) and the B-rated High importance articles (188 articles).

Do we want to select some obviously important ones out of these lists, or others? To quote Anton: "The list should include around 100 articles on key topics about your country across different fields – the country’s culture, history, economy, notable women etc. The topics should be well-known and important for readers globally (and in Ukraine) but not so well-known that they are already covered extremely well." The list would then live on Meta. Ideally, the list would be compiled by 10 April, as the campaign starts on 15 April.

Thoughts and help hugely welcome! There is probably a way to use Petscan to compare what articles already exist on Ukrainian Wikipedia versus these English language articles. Smirkybec (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 24 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Neo-paganism in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 24 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

College Street, Dublin

Yes, I know I did write quite a bit of this article and it is of Irish interest. Currently it is nominated for a Did you know?, however, no one else seems to be chiming in. I'm not canvassing for any particular hook but it could do with more comments. Also, if you can add to the article please do so. ww2censor (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Manor House Resort Hotel

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate any advice on this entry.

Links 1 and 3 are dead - the website has since been replaced; link 2 no longer seems relevant.

The 'history' of the building is limited and not really of much interest.

I feel the whole entry should be deleted, it's little more thanan advert, but I would welcome comments from those with more experience. Andy57Clark (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome. And thanks for your note. In terms of:

• The Manor House Resort Hotel article, if you feel it doesn't meet the WP:NBUILDING of WP:GNG notability guidelines, please consider doing a WP:BEFORE search. And, if you feel it doesn't meet the criteria, nominate for procedural deletion or considered discussion. If you don't know how to do this, open a discussion on the article talk page at Talk:Manor House Resort Hotel.
• History of the building, my own WP:BEFORE has returned a number of sources which allow for expansion of that section. I don't think it's as clear-cut as your note implies.
• Dead links. If a linked webpage is dead, it may yet be available in archived form. We don't typically just delete dead links (or the content associated with them) without trying to fix the issue first. See WP:DEADLINK.
• Tone/advertising. Similar to links, if an article contains less-than-neutral content (whether overt or quasi-promotional), we seek to address that issue. We don't delete the entire article. See WP:Deletion is not cleanup.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll have a deeper look in the coming days. Andy57Clark (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking for a book

I can't find it on Google or Amazon. It's cited in another book and I'm wondering if anyone here can help (will crosspost to WT:MILHIST). I don't have a publisher or author's full name, let alone an ISBN; here are the details given in the book:

• D. Fitzpatrick, Ireland and the First World War (Dublin, 1986), specifically the chapter "Lest we forget" by J. Leonard, pp. 59-67.

I'm happy to buy a copy but I'd appreciate any help in tracking one down! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell: It's listed on Worldcat with the ISBN but I can't say where there is a holding you can get to because they only show those within 200km of my location. So check it yourself but you can buy it through bookfinder's results. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ww2censor thank you! Ive ordered a copy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Problems with Irish cross-border roads

You may be interested in this discussion about cross-border roads in Ireland - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Problems with Irish cross-border roads. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Combatants in Irish battles

I've just noticed that IP 79.68.248.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has recently changed the combatants in the articles of almost every battle in Ireland. These would all need looked at, and I'd say most of them would need to be undone. This kind of thing has happened before on a smaller scale. Obviously for internal conflicts we shouldn't call the Kingdom of Ireland simply "Ireland" or "Irish", since it was an English/British dependency, nor should we call the Irish Confederation simply "Ireland".

We need to be consistent in how we refer to the Lordship and Kingdom of Ireland in conflicts against the Gaelic Irish. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 10:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Black Irish (ethnic group)

This article could use some eyes and input. It focuses on a theory that I'm unfamiliar with and wonder if it's not WP:FRINGE. I'm most familiar with the phrase Black Irish as described at the disambig page. See Talk:Black Irish#Most prominent definition belongs up top as well, as the editor who is working on the ethnicity article wants to move it to: Black Irish (genealogy), which I do not support and seems very odd to me. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

People from the Republic of Ireland

This proposed category change may interest the project. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of the ideology of Fianna Fáil

A current discussion about the ideology of Fianna Fáil may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

New articles on presidencies

Hi all, a few days ago I noticed that BreadSuperFan36 created the articles Presidency of Mary McAleese and Presidency of Michael D. Higgins. The account is new, has logged 25 total edits, and the Michael D article (in userspace first) is it's first edit.

The reason I'm bringing these to your attention is that I think they might be AI generated articles. To post a whopping 85,000 bytes in two days is no mean feat, and though certainly possible, seems dubious enough to me before even looking at the articles themselves. They feel... off in some way. Neither article uses print sources. They use a lot of subheadings, most very short. The Michael D. article doesn't mention he's the incumbent. Both Higgins and McAleese have "Independent" listed as their party affiliations in the infobox, something which I don't believe was true for either of them? (Could be wrong, just don't know). To me it really seems like a legacy marker from the Robinson article.

Also just to be clear that I'm not trying to argue that they shouldn't exist: I myself created and wrote the majority of Presidency of Mary Robinson and honestly all of our past-presidents probably deserve an article. They just definitely need a looking over. Xx78900 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

IMPORTANT UPDATE These articles are definitely AI generated: none of the source links are real. As much as I would prefer to see the articles kept and edited properly, at present they are blatant breaches of WP:BLP and need to be speedy deleted. Will report now.Xx78900 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay so I clearly lost the run of myself last night, apologies. None of the links worked for me and I thought it was all fake, but they're working for me this morning... no idea what happened there. The original point still stands though, both of these articles need some serious attention. Xx78900 (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Xx78900: I noticed these too and wondered why would we need two article that essentially cover all the same information as their own biographic articles. Any additional prose could easily be added there. I have no opinion on the possible AI creation but for the length of these articles to be posted all at once would likely require quite a lot of offline work when many editors use their own sandboxes. Their sandbox use was a virtually complete post of what went not the article with just 1 edit for Mary McAleese. I'd like to see more opinions. ww2censor (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There can be a use to having separate pages, although I would imagine that not all of our presidents would need both a normal biographical page and a separate one for the party. We should be alert both to errors through AI content generation, but also Wikipedia:Content forking. I was alerted through User:SuggestBot of the pages History of Fianna Fáil and History of Fine Gael, which both need a fair bit of work and updating.

As Xx78900 mentions affiliation, I don't think its appropriate in describing the administration (as opposed to the candidacy), which are meant to be outside party politics while in office. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation requested

Hello. The article Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn needs a pronunciation recording or review of its IPA. If someone can work on it that would be great. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Not familiar with IPA but I'm an Irish teacher by trade and am happy to record a pronunciation. No idea how to though. Xx78900 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Irish railway station naming

Hello,

I was just wondering if the naming on articles on Irish railway stations need to be made more consistent. There is Sligo Mac Diarmada railway station or Cork Kent railway station (town name + station name), but Galway railway station or Waterford railway station (town name only). For stations in Dublin, it misses 'Dublin' at the beginning (Heuston railway station, but Connolly station).

The descriptions also vary slightly. Some read '[town] railway station...', others just '[town] station...'. Some mention that the station is a railway station followed by the town it serves, others go straight to the town it serves (some of these were changed by me before I was aware of the inconsistency).

Which of these is best:

• [town name] [station name] railway station
• [town name] ([station name]) railway station (as it appears on Iarnród Éireann)
• [station name] railway station
• [town name] railway station (won't work for Dublin)

Thanks, EthanL13 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. When you say "Which of these is best[?]", what do you mean? Best for what? Best for a list article somewhere? Or a transport navbox? Or best for article titles? If the latter, I would note that article titles are typically based on WP:COMMONNAME. While WP:CONSISTENCY has a role in article titling, it doesn't typically override COMMONNAME. (For example, Connolly station is typically referred to as just that. "Connolly station". I'm not sure if it's what you're proposing, but I don't think it would be appropriate to change it to "Connolly railway station" just because other station articles have "railway" in their official or common names...) Guliolopez (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

@Guliolopez Best for article titles, yes. But with common name vs. consistency I understand now. And for Connolly Station that was what I was proposing. Why is it that it is Connolly station, but Heuston railway station, but Dublin Pearse railway station? With all these they are just known as [name] station.

I have come across WP:IRLSTATION. It seems then that the naming is suitable for Connolly (common name + served by Luas). Heuston is distinguished from "Euston" or "Houston" yes, but it is also served by Luas. I am still left unsure as regards to Pearse and Sligo. EthanL13 (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate that another user "sent you here", and I feel bad "shunting you along" elsewhere, but I wonder (given your reference to WP:IRLSTATION) if it might to raise any questions/concerns at the related talk page. Namely at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish stations). Which seems to be somewhat active. And perhaps WP:PINGing the editors who contributed to the related RfC. Like Cuchullain and Djm-leighpark and Bastun. Who appear to have had a specific discussion about Connolly. Including during that RfC which resulted in the proposal being firmed-up.... Guliolopez (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Daithi De Nogla#Requested move 13 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Daithi De Nogla#Requested move 13 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Irish police officers by county

The proposal at WP:CFM here may be of interest to the project. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

People from Northern Ireland by occupation

The proposal at WP:CFM here may be of interest to the project. Apparently Northern Ireland is a "nation" and so entitled to "by nationality" categorisation; I thought that, at best, it was a "constituent country". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Funny linking on Lena Rice

Hi all, I just noticed on the article on Lena Rice that the wikilink for 'country' in her infobox brings you to the Irish Rugby team. The reason I'm flagging it here and not just on the article is I'm just wondering if this could be an issue on other sports people's pages? It's not an area I edit on, so I'm not sure where to start looking. I also haven't corrected the error, as I'm not sure what to link to, and suspect there is an answer beyond just delinking. Thanks! Xx78900 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone recently decided to go in and remove the British sporting nationality section and replace it with an Irish one. In credit they tried to use the correct Ireland flag and it seems an old rubgy union template was the only way they could think to do it. I've reverted it all back. While yes she was Irish, due to the setup and the way the sporting nationality was done at the time she had the British sporting nationality (this is for sports representation only), not an Irish one. All references are to her having British sporting nationality. I've also reverted said editors other alterations elsewhere on the same topic. Canterbury Tail talk 12:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Combatants in historical military conflicts in/involving Ireland

I note that the topic/concern raised in May by Asarlaí, appears to be ongoing. With wholescale changes across multiple articles (spanning the 1798 rebellion, Williamite wars, Nine Years War, etc). In each case the editor making the changes (seemingly the same one previously acting from a different IP/range/ranges) has not explained the rationale for any of the changes made. While I note that some of these changes, for example to the Battle of the Boyne article have been reverted, other changes remain. For example, the article on the Battle of Carrickfergus (1597) now pipes Gaelic Ireland to the term "Rebels". As if the concepts are synonymous. And the "result" parameter changed from "Scots-Irish victory" to "Rebel victory". Personally I have questions/concerns about some of this type of piping. (As noted in Asarlaí's original thread/note, these things were not "black and white", and some consistency or clarity is probably required. But I'm not sure that the changes/pipes introduced, like changing [[Kingdom of Ireland]] to [[Kingdom of Ireland|Irish Government]] or [[Gaelic Ireland]] to [[Gaelic Ireland|Rebels]] is especially helpful in this regard.) Other thoughts? Guliolopez (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Guliolopez, I went through the articles recently and undid any changes I thought were wrong. However, another IP editor has continued the mass changes, again without any explanations. This has been going on since April: an IP editor changes the combatants in dozens of Irish battles, many are undone, the IP stops editing, then another IP comes along and does the same thing. Sometimes their changes aren't even the same. They seem to be running amok on these articles. I think the only solutions are either to warn and block each IP, or to protect all of the articles from IP edits. Has anyone else any thoughts on this? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 09:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Asarlaí. I had noticed the same thing. I'm not sure what the solution might be. Perhaps a thread at ANI or a more "empowered" forum would prompt suggestions? Guliolopez (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've undone most of the problematic changes again. In my edit summaries I've told them not to change the combatants without consensus and left a link to this discussion. If the mass changes continue after that, I think we should formally warn the IP editors and they'll probably end up being blocked for disruption. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Local councillors by city categories

I'm minded to nominate all the city councillor categories (e.g. Category:Local councillors in Cork (city)) to "Members of Foo City Council". It's not like the members can be members of town councils but not members of the County Council. There's only one council in the city. What say you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's a clearer and much more natural description of members of the category. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Iveagh Gardens & @Laurel Lodged that doent work in all cases. In Dublin at least, there were Urban distrct councils until (I think) 1929, including Rathmines and Ehe Pembroke townships. Those areas were then in County Dublin, but are now within the boundaries of Dublin city, but their councilors were not memeers of Dublin Corporation.

I can't recall whether there similar issues in other cities, but in the counties there were Rural Districts Councils unti they were abolished in the 1930s.

So renaming would be a bad idea. Any categories for specific councils should be created afresh as subcats, and popualted by carfeful manual selection. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

In this case, Laurel Lodged, were all the members of this category members of Cork City Council? BrownHairedGirl is right that we'd want to be certain of that. There also might be a value in keeping that consistent when we consider the Dublin ones.

In Dublin, any members of the RDCs and UDCs (in the case of Dublin, abolished in 1930, except for Howth) should be in the category Category:Local councillors in County Dublin; although the territory of most of the UDCS and some of the territory of the RDS is now part of Dublin city, this was not the case at the time they were district councillors. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for peer review of Victorian era

I've been working on the article about the Victorian era a great deal this year and have recently got it to good article status. I'm hopping to get it to featured article status over the next few months which would be my first featured article. What kind of changes do you think would be needed to get their? The article mainly covers Great Britain but some parts relate to Ireland.

Link to peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Victorian era/archive1 Llewee (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, @Llewee.

I left a lengthy comment[7] at WP:Peer review/Victorian era/archive1, in which I explain some of the reasons why the article needs a complete rewrite. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hello. I am reaching out to see if someone is willing to add a recording for the pronunciation of Muirchertach Mac Lochlainn and for Aedh mac Cathal Crobdearg Ua Conchobair. Regards, --Thinker78 (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Is Dublin City in County Dublin?

I've started a discussion at Talk:County Dublin#Does County Dublin include the city of Dublin that could be assisted by further contributions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Use of "the three kingdoms" as a term outside of the 1639-1651 wars

Hello WPIreland, I noticed Jacobitism has a rather prominent section describing various movements "in the three kingdoms", referring to England, Scotland, and Ireland together, and I wanted to ask around on the project pages to see if such a use of the title is actually backed up outside of the context of Charles I of England and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

Three Kingdoms (disambiguation) seems inconclusive on the subject and in general this style of terminology seems like it shouldn't be employed without something in the text to back it up, as titling a section "in the three kingdoms" rather than "in the British Isles" or "in England, Scotland, and Ireland" implies it to be an established term the reader can already be presumed to be familiar with. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A popular history of Ireland (1864) uses "the three kingdoms" several times, from James I up to the end of the eighteenth century. John Mitchel's History of Ireland, Volume 2 uses it several times while talking about the 19th century. This 1906 journal article uses it 27 times in a contemporary context, and the 1895 report of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland (which I can't link to) uses it repeatedly in the same context. I'm sure I can find more. Scolaire (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Orchastrattor: from an Irish perspective, the term "British Isles" is highly problematic. In a nusthell, Ireland is not British.

See British Isles naming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Problematic for some people, perhaps. Some of us really don't care about the geographical term when used correctly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)