Re Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (recent news story in Ireland): The coverage of this that I'm seeing in the general press seems to emphasize that this is a "Catholic Church" issue. Our article hardly mentions the Catholic Church. We want to make sure that our article is NPOV and neither over-emphasizes nor under-emphasizes the facts. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
FAR for Samuel Beckett
I have nominated Samuel Beckett 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
British Isles dispute
I don't think it's right to have the article British Isles under WikiProject Ireland seeing as it is an insult to our country to have it under the heading "British". I have complained about the name on Talk:British Isles, and I'm proposing we have a vote by WikiProject Ireland members only, as to whether we should remove the article from the scope of this WikiProject, in protest.--FF3000 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The term 'British Isles is not a political term but geographic. It seems to be thought of as political only by the Irish - similar, possibly, to New Zealanders not being too happy with 'Australasia'.93.107.139.186 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Irish Music
WikiProject Irish Music is in a sorry state. I'm trying to knock new life into it, but if other users don't contribute it will probably have to be merged into WikiProject Ireland. Please join if you can, it's already listed as inactive.--FF3000 (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, good suggestion but I think that we should make an effort to try and reboot it first, as it is a very important part of Irish culture. I'm sure that there will be some people on both this WikiProject and WikiProject Music dedicated to it. I might also eventually inform the founder of the WikiProject, NaLaochra about the situation if all else fails.--FF3000 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
NaLaochra has not been active for over a year per [1], so that is likely a non-starter. I would suggest posting to a few editors who are currently active in some of the Irish musicians' articles, such as Agadant and Candlewicke to name just two. I am sure you can find more. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've made my position clear: if anybody who thinks that we should have an article on this individual they can write an article on this individual. What more is there to discuss? Scolaire (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
201.37.230.43, I just read your comments on Scoláire's talk page, where you say "I know absolutely nothing about him.... my opinion on whether Wikipedia should have a given article is independent of my personal ability to do any constructive work on that article.... I'm not competent to do much with it", etc. I think you have misunderstood what it takes to create an article like this. All you need is some basic understanding about the world, access to Google and some spare time. You seem to have all three so I am not clear why you didn't build on the stub that Scoláire created for you. I'm not Irish and I don't know anything about the Irish legal system but I managed it—see Seán Ryan (Irish judge)—so you can too. Next time, just go for it! - Pointillist (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Vote on renaming article to include "British Isles"
The annon has put this very poorly indeed. The article as it stands now is entitled Military history of the peoples of the British Islands, which was changed a while back from Military history of the peoples of the British Isles.
Option 3 - Military history of Britain and Ireland
Option 4 - Create two articles. Military history of Britain + Military history of Ireland
Option 5 - Military history of the United Kingdom
Generally it would seem opposers to option 1 are users who do not want to see Ireland mixed in with the term "British Isles" due to past polatics while users who oppose the other options generally see the term "British Isles" as a geogrpahical term and void of any political intentions on ownership of Ireland etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
But it's only a list! Why don't people write proper articles instead of fighting over the titles of non-articles? I would have voted delete but that particular vote is closed. Scolaire (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Does this notice breach policy for (what's the damn word???) - trying to advertise for !votes. If so, please delete ASAP. --HighKing (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Vote rigging? :p Considering the way the first guy worded it i thought it was best for the time been to give a more fuller picture of the situation but i agree with the two of you.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to draw together articles and information on this important family in a more systematic way. At present Geraldines redirects to FitzGerald, which is essentially no more than a dab page. It is difficult to find individual FitzGeralds without knowing in advance exactly what you're looking for. I would like to expand the individual articles, and also have a "Geraldines" article that detailed the history of the FitzGeralds in a fairly comprensive way and linked to as many family members - Norman invaders, earls, rebels etc. - as practicable. If anybody is interested in getting invovlved please let me know on my talk page. Scolaire (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys. In my noobiness last month, I edited the pages of Oireachtas TDs with an external link to the new website www.kildarestreet.com (I am a mod on that website). For so doing, my original username (gavinsblog) was blocked indefinitely for alleged spamming. Partly my boo.
What I would like to suggest to the community is that an external link to KildareStreet profiles should be placed on the wikipedia profiles of all TDs and Senators. The KS profiles are both relevant and useful to anyone seeking information on a TD or Senator. For example Dermot Ahern TD. Notice the data, it allows anyone to sign up for and email alert whenever that TD speaks, and gives information on how often they speak in the Dail. It includes links back to their wiki profiles, as well as their election data history and official party website profiles.
KildareStreet is modelled on an API developed by mySociety and used on the British version, theyworkforyou.com. The wikipedia profiles of British MPs contain links to both theyworkforyou and publicwhip.org.uk (For example Tom_Watson_(politician)#External_links.
I am suggesting that all TD profiles contain links (as they already do to ElectionsIreland.org), to their Kildare Street profiles as well. The data is relevant, well presented, and importantly, Kildare Street is run as a not for profit, pro bono project, without ads. Anyone searching for information on their representatives would find an external link to KildareStreet beneficial.
Incidentally, the user who originally complained of link spamming has since accepted that was not my intention, and that adding links to KildareStreet has merit. -- gavinsblog1 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This website looks useful, though a bit lacking in detail at the moment. I'd have no objections to adding it as an External link for Oireachtas members. Snappy (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
KildareStreet is in beta, and the addition of more data (TD expenses, Members' interests etc) is in progress. All data for both houses is included from January 2004 (plans to go back further also). The website is also automatically updated via xml whenever the Oireachtas website itself updates. I will set about adding links, and also perhaps filling in any gaps in TD profiles that I have come across (links to official party websites are broken for the most part). Thanks. gavinsblog1 (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.162.98 (talk)
I have thrown to together a Military history of Ireland articles as a consequence of developments on Military history of Britain. Please don't come to my page or write snappy edit comments, it was literally thrown together. This is partially deliberate, because I don't want to write too much too quick without out other people being involved. So please can other contribute/fix the article (I've already tagged it with the obvious problems).
Just to sort out an edit war at the Iceland (supermarket) page, we know that Iceland Ballyfermot reopened last November, but can someone please verify, is it still open? We need someone who lives in the area. FF3000 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The relevant info can (or has) been added to the Mayor of X article, e.g. Lord Mayor of Dublin. The minor ones are notable enough in their own right. There is also quite alot of them, every county, city, town and urban council has a Mayor/Chair/Cathaoirleach which changes every year. Snappy (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the histories it seems on 7 February 2008:
16:15, Schcambo m (moved South Dublin to South Dublin County: To align with Gaelic name; to prevent confusion with Southside (Dublin); to acknowledge the fact that it is a county and not simply an administrative area.) (undo)
16:24, Schcambo m (moved Fingal to Fingal County over redirect: Acknowledging that it is a county, not just an administrative area.
16:45, Djegan m (moved Fingal County to County of Fingal: correct name - "County" always comes first in Ireland naming practice for the county) (undo)
16:47, Djegan m (moved South Dublin County to County of South Dublin: Irish convention is that "County" comes first in name of county and "County of South Dublin" is official name!) (undo)
16:51, Djegan m (moved Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown to County of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown: we might as well rename this one as Fingal and South Dublin have been moved by someone!) (undo)
16:52, Schcambo m (moved County of Fingal to Fingal County over redirect: 'Fingal' on its own is the official title, the same as 'Wicklow', 'Kildare', etc. Irish convention is simply County x, which is not usable here, so the next most appropriate form is X County.) (undo)
16:53, Djegan m (moved Fingal County to County of Fingal over redirect) (undo)
Then on 22 May 2008:
18:36 Schcambo m (moved North Tipperary to County of North Tipperary: Move to align with the Dublin admin counties.)
18:43 Schcambo m (moved South Tipperary to County of South Tipperary: Move to align with the Dublin admin counties.)
I find all of these arguments weak, and the "County of" superfluous, annoying, and in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME.
The usual Irish formulation "County N" does not (yet) apply to the new counties, in my experience. Still less "County of N".
Consistency with each other is a lame policy for article names, especially when it applies to just 5 out of 31.
Aligning with Gaelic name is a non-reason.
"acknowledge the fact that it is a county and not simply an administrative area." you can do this in the article. It is absurd to worry that readers will draw an invalid inference based on the absence of a word from the article title.
Prevent confusion of "South Dublin" with "Southside"? South Dublin still redirects to "County of South Dublin" so that doesnt fix the non-existent problem. A hatnote would do.
None of the new counties are take the form "County X", "Country of X" or "X County". The most appropriate place for all of them would be, for example, Fingal.
The traditional "Irish convention" arises because Irish counties were named after (formerly) famous places in those counties e.g. Mayo, Clare, Down, Tipperary. The convention is so as to make a distinction between the famous place and the administrative area named after it. The convention has not been extended to the new counties (maybe because there is no need, maybe because people forgot how Irish counties were named - IMHO only Fingal is properly named). In the phrase "Fingal County Council" what is meant is the "County Council" of "Fingal", not the "Council" of "Fingal County" (A "County Council" is a specific type of local government with specific powers under Irish law.)
I don't understand the statement, "Acknowledging that it is a county, not just an administrative area." A county is just an administrative area. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The "County of" seems to be a wikipedia invention, so best to remove it and just have Fingal, South Dublin, North Tipperary etc. as per WP:Commonname. Jnestorius stated that none of the new counties (new being going on fifteen years old!) take the form "County X", says who? Is this the law, some new convention or what? Snappy (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"Jnestorius stated that..." Actually, I said it. "Is this the law, some new convention or what?" No. Under law none of the counties take the form "County X", that's just a common name. The new counties, for whatever reason, haven't inherited that tradition it seems. A Google search, for example, will bring back 100 times more hits for "County Mayo" than for "County Fingal" ... and 1000 times more hits than for "County North Tipperary". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Pity, because then we'd have thirty-one counties (actually thirty-two when you include The People's Republic of Cork). Therefore, thirty-two counties in a soverign united country recognised the world over as Ireland/Eire - that'd it cut the ground from underneath Sinn Fein! Mischeviously yours, Fergananim (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Jnestorius - this is very annoying and certainly in breach of WP:COMMONNAME. While the new counties in Dublin are not so clear (nobody really says "County Fingal") in respect of the traditional Counties of Ireland (all 33 when you include both Tipperary N and S) the near universal common name is "County X". Sarah777 (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It is quite clear from the establishing legislation that the three new administrative Dublin division names are: South Dublin, Fingal and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown. No county, county of, etc. However Tipperary is not so clear as I see the terms "County of North Tipperary", "County Tipperary, North Riding", "County of Tipperary, North Riding", "Tipperary, North Riding", "Tipperary, South Riding", etc., in a "North Tipperary" search of the statutes and acts. Similar results are obtained for a "South Tipperary" search. ww2censor (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Aye, the situation with Tipp isn't so clear (maybe because it isn't *new* like the other "new" counties) - Tipperary North Riding and South Riding have simply been renamed North and South. I'm still unconvinced that the "County" in "County Tipperary North Riding" (or Tipperary North) refers to "Tipperary North Riding". I think it means "County Tipperary" "North Riding". Like their website says, "The County of Tipperary is divided into two administrative areas - North Tipperary and South Tipperary."
Ww3censor, look through the statues you link to and see how they mix "County of Tipperary" with "County of Tipperary (North Riding) e.g. "These Regulations amend the Road Traffic (Speed Limits) (County of Tipperary North Riding) Regulations, 1968 ( S.I. No. 173 of 1968 ) and alter the speed limits applicable to certain roads in the County of Tipperary (North Riding)."
My last 2¢ on this topic is that I think "County X" should be used for the 32 traditional counties. While only the legislative name should be used for the new counties (including Tipp north and south). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a random thought: since everybody here seems to be agreed that the page moves were inappropriate, why doesn't somebody just move them back? Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what details exactly you want to include, Imbris. A description of the COA e.g. "a harp or, stringed argent, on a field azure" can just be added to the "Description" field. If you want to cite sources, <ref></ref> works the same on Commons as it does here. Scolaire (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems that you did not read the text on Commons. Over there some details were singled out. We do not need to discuss each and every notch, dot or whatever. What I have tryed to do was: (1) Present the reliable source [4]; (2) Notify the community that File:COA IRELAND.PNG by User:Djegan (which was used as a starting point for User:Tonyjeff to create the .sVG) is not official and has flaws in some details; (3) Let the community decide.
I was not prepared to face the sad truth – that nobody cares – much – to be bothered with reading what is written at Commons (and answer the two editors there).
But I am prepared to discuss with editors who would dignify themselves to (a) read the text on Commons, and (b) to play (in fact look) for discrepancies (differences) between the current commons:File:Coat of arms of Ireland.svg and the Reliable Source at WIPO.
When (a) and (b) happen, I would be obliged to comment, but this way, without carying, I will not play the game.
Simmer down, Imbris! If you know what needs to be done then just do it. The "sad truth" is that an awful lot of people do not care at all whether an image of a coat of arms has some flaws or not - certainly not enough to read all that text without being told explicitly what to look for. I was trying to help you to organise your thoughts so that if anybody wanted to help, they would know what help was required. Neither I nor anybody else is going to do all the work for you. Scolaire (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I've requested a peer review of Christian Conventions. Please have a look at this highly improved article, and review its status. It is probably better than Start Class. We intend to nominate for GA once peer review is complete. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Peer review is a formal process and if you would like to do that you need to follow the instructions at WP:REVIEW after which you can list the article in the "Peer review" section of this project as being in formal peer review so others know it is happening. Just listing it there, as you did, will not make anything happen. I am reassessing it for this project but anything over B-class is done by the formal nomination processes. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have done this by the book, but I have chosen "Philosophy/Religion" as prime for the review. Ireland Project claims article is in its scope, so this is courtesy notice. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Leprechaun has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.
The main problem with vertical navboxes is that they are very intrusive, especially in shorter articles. Horizontal navboxes just work much better with the general article layout. The vertical style forces editors to place images not adjacent to the associated prose or to be ranged left leaving the text squashed between images and the navbox which is rather ugly. Even the use of the town infoboxes causes this problem to some extent when there is little prose and adding another vertical navbox will only compound the situation further. The only way a vertical navbox sort of works is when it is displayed by default in a collapsed state but once opened the page layout goes haywire. Consider that and also what articles might actually benefit from such a navbox. I seem to recall that a previous attempt was made to introduce a new, vertical style, template some time ago but I don't have it on my watchlist anymore so it may have been deleted but it never went into use. ww2censor (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have completed the new navigation box here. Please take a look and make any edits that you think are needed, and give your opinion on whether or not it should be used, or e.g. if this box should be used along with the other box. --FF3000 ·talk14:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added the navbox to this page for testing, and it seems to work without intruding on the article. Please remove it if you think it looks ugly. FF3000 ·talk17:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Two comments: First, I agree with Ww2censor about vertical infoboxes; even if they sit quite happily when they'e added first, it's not long before another template, image or something else interacts with them and the text is thrown all over the place. Second, we have to get rid of these gaudy green and orange colours on everything relating to Ireland! I'm as patriotic as the next person but, apart from anything else, some project members are unionists and they should be able to come to this page without feeling as though they're at a Sinn Féin cumann meeting. Scolaire (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The colours are completely unreadable, never mind any political import. They're the wrong green and gold. I prefer the current Infobox. Mise, le dúthracht mhór, -- Evertype·✆08:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I promised myself never to revisit this series but they recently featured in the July 16 article quality assessment log. Numerous have been re-rated in importance from "low" to "mid" without any obvious reason. Even odder is that the talkpage histories appear to show the last change was actually done 2 years ago! We need to standardise this. Ww2 and SeoR; your attention is required! Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason many articles appeared in the most recent assessment log, including those you are interested in Sarah, is that someone had vandalised the stub-class category page causing the assessment bot to remove all the stub articles but after I fixed the problem, the assessment log restored them which is the result you see. That is why they appeared in the log, but actually nothing was changed in the actual assessments of any of those pages as indicated by the last changes being two years ago for some artcile. Nothing to worry about Sarah. ww2censor (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Historical populations template
A template, Historical populations, has been added to a large number of Irish towns articles, showing population according to census returns from 1821 to 2006. As far as I can see this does not relate to anything in the articles themselves, and it is not IMO inherently interesting. It does, however, badly mess up the articles (see the discussion above on the problems caused by vertical infoboxes). I would like to see these templates gone. Scolaire (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Scolaire, please explain why you believe the info is not relevant. On the contrary, it seems obvious that population figures are central to any historical understanding of the human aspect of place, and any decision to exclude such information would need to be fully justified. If such info "does not relate to anything in the articles themselves" that merely points up a lacuna the articles. --Yumegusa (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Then fill the lacuna, write up the population changes, and then add the template, when the article is big enough to accomodate it and it complements the text. Don't do it backways, if doing it backways makes a mess of the article. BTW I didn't say I believe the info is not relevant. I said "it is not IMO inherently interesting." If you want to make it interesting to me, tell me in words, don't just paste a template. I didn't say either that we should "exclude such information", I only asked that an ugly template be removed. Scolaire (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Scolaire - the information is academically interesting but out of proportion for some articles, and lacks context. This includes explaining that the areas measured for population are not always exact matches for, for example, all of a town. It has also been added carelessly, spoiling format - someone should use Preview next time. SeoR (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If there were sufficient text to complement the templates that might be a real justification for having the template. The essential statistics can quite easily be described in prose - that is the real lacana. Until that happens, I too would prefer to not have the population templates on their own. Regarding the intrusive layout, this could be partly fixed from a visual point of view if the template was displayed by default in a collapsed state but once opened can be very intrusive as they are now. This is the reason why horizontal templates work so much better than vertical ones. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
In theory, that template could be added to any geographical area. I think it is important too when adding such a long template that attention be given to how it will affect the layout of the article. (The "climate chart" template is a pet hate of mine, mainly because those responsible for slapping on in here there and everywhere seem to do so without care nor prayer for how it will affect the content of the page.) I second Ww2censor's comments, more thought could be put into these sort of templates.
It is an interesting article but I think limits need to be put on it. Counties (current and traditional) and cities (current) only? (I'd propose the same for the "climate chart" too.)
On an point of content, population figures before 1841 are all estimates. The first census was in 1841 (which leads to telling only half a story.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a note to that effect on the infobox, see Kilrush. The number of towns currently affected can be seen here. I've reverted Castledermot because it's on my watchlist, but I'm not going to do any mass revert. I would prefer if the editor concerned did that him/herself. Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no overlap between the two account. It may be that the user just changed a/c. I'll grant you it is out of the normal, but the Happy Geographer a/c was apparently being stalked (see note on talk page). Maybe he/she changed a/c to shake the tail. (Not that it didn't make it any better that he/she didnt' reply to Scolaire or anyone else.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"Stalked" is a bit dramatic. A user who objected to the phrase "32 counties" reverted the "comparative population" edit on some of the county articles. Still, I suppose it might have been enough to make Happy Geographer not a happy camper. Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, "stalked" is a bit much. I'm going to contact the editor again. It's a shame he/she is not participating here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed the template at Clonmel. Seems WP:OR to me, but would be happy if the ed. concerned engaged, and I might be prepared to think otherwise. I'm pretty sure the borough boundaries changed several times over the years indicated and so an increase or decrease in pop. figures might just as easily be down to this rather arbitrary event rather than an indication of 'development' or 'stagnation', as might be assumed at first glance. Aesthetically I'm not gone on it either, but that's just my POV. RashersTierney (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of being a minority of one; I thought there was a lot of interesting information in the template which is now "lost". And I think population stats are more relevant in an article about a settlement than other geography articles. There is an intrinsic link; the settlement is the population first and foremost. I'd not worry about it being used in the Wicklow Mountains article. They are there whether populated or not. I agree there are layout issues, but don't think zapping all the work is the way to solve this. Sarah777 (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems this editor is now contributing as User:Census1911 fan and continuing to apply this template irrespective of previous concerns raised, as here. I will ask him/her to discuss the matter here again, but ignoring requests to discuss, as before, is not on. Feedback from other eds. on the project please. RashersTierney (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
First off, it's a *very* ugly template when applied to articles. It should at least include a show/hide option with the default set to hide. It also needs, at minimum, a 'disclaimer' as a reference stating that boundaries between the different censuses (censii?) may have changed (because they often have). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
As OP, I'm obviously not an "other ed", but I think if somebody is creating multiple accounts to do stuff like this, they need to be reverted with extreme prejudice.
@Sarah, nothing is ever "lost" on WP. They'll always be available in the version history if you or somebody else comes up with a more workable way of using the data. Since all three accounts appear to be SPAs you will probably be able to click on their contributions at any time to find the articles affected. Scolaire (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Bastun not the best of templates at the very least show hide should be placed on the template, also as Rashers says it could produce incorrect results if taken at face value without boundarie changes and the like taken into account. I also agree that if editor is abusing multiple accounts they should be reverted and reported. BigDunc12:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
As a returned user I don't see what the issue is the population templates. In the articles I have seen they look fine. In addition the issue of boundaries is in my view a red herring. All urban centres change their boundaries over time. But that does not stop historians using population numbers to gain a rough overall impression of population trends. In fact in many Irish towns the boundaries did not change over the 19th century because the declining population meant the urban centre did not spill over into the surrounding hinterland. I fully support their inclusion and see them as a useful addition. I have just seen on added to the page on a local town, and found it extremely useful as I am in the middle of some local history research and had yet to do that sort of analysis. The population numbers given will in of direct use to use in my research. FearÉIREANN\(caint)12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It is difficult to be impartially critical of the methodology used since it is not clear how the figures were arrived at, other than a general direct to the National Census website. If you think that makes the data reliable for research purposes, then maybe you should be a little more sceptical as to what constitutes useful primary data. The changing boundaries issue is NOT a red herring. In certain cases it will introduce an arbitrary variable without making any allowance, or giving due warning. RashersTierney (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I've randomly checked 6 stats. and they are at least consistent with the published CSO figures. Can't vouch for more than that. Still think, at the very least, the template should be 'collapsed' as suggested above. RashersTierney (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Although I'm not part of Project Ireland, I assume I am able to comment from the depths of rural England. The template is indeed ugly, but nothing that show/hide won't fix. The data is fantastically interesting, I have been surfing towns to compare/understand the famine and other subsequent trends. Please keep, embrace and enhance it. Regards Autodidactyl (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately these are not inserted by template but are individual simple tables that will EACH require a complete rewrite to make collapsible in the vertical format. If the editor{s} would bother to discuss we might be able to reformat into a horizontal table for better page layout as already mentioned and not even need to be collapsible. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm bothered a bit by a few things here. While I think the data is of some interest, the use of multiple SPAs and refusal to join discussion makes it difficult to assume good faith. Specifically, each entry that I have looked at mentions four authors, only one of which is wikilinked. In addition, the co-author Joel Mokyr has a Wikipedia article, but is not wikilinked. If this goes on, we'll have potentially hundreds of poorly formatted articles and all with a redlink. I would suggest that we start reverting in order to force the editor to come clean on any potential conflict of interest, discuss the edits here and then re-add in a better formatted state. Thoughts? Nelson50T16:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy Geographer/Delicate Enumeration / Census1911 fan/Navan Anuaimh/Drumlish Danny/Labhras Raghallaigh/Prosperous Pikeman/Straight Iwillrepair/Granuaile Unveiled/Reformed YellowbellyThe way the editor in question is going about this is creating a problem. Examples: The population of Tramore doubles between 1971 and '81. Thomastown has a swathe of data missing, all without explanation. Is it for other eds. to do the donkey work and check out these apparent errors? Exasperated! RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Having looked around a bit at the codes, I was wrong to say this was a simple table. It is actually based on the template {{Historical populations}} but is a vertical only format template. I will investigate if it is possible to convert it into a horizontal format. ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Rashers Tierney and I both asked over at that template's talk page if show/hide functionality could be added, and its been done. Apparently its necessary to manually add "|state = collapsed " to the ones already in existence, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!08:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
While we still have the attention of the template designer, might we suggest making the table wider to be the same as the standard geography template that usually resides above. Or even asking him/her to modify/design one specifically for this project. Thats assuming the main mover and shaker in all this would be prepared to use it. RashersTierney (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
If it's placed under the infobox, collapsed or not, it still creates a massive hole at the top of the article - on my browser at least. I moved it on the Kilrush article. Does it need to be at the top of the article? Will the sections on population - assuming people are going to start writing them - not be further down the article? Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine on mine too (also Firefox); the collapse solves many layout issues. I'd agree with Rashers that it should be made so that width can be adjusted to match the infobox. (There seems to be 250px and 268px versions in common usage). Sarah777 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have IE8 (formerly 7) and Windows Vista (formerly XP) on a PC, and in this revision I have no text at all, only white space, from the end of the first paragraph ("...the town of Kilrush is mentioned.") for one-and-a-half computer screens - the length of the infobox, the illustration, the collapsed template and the table of contents. On my old setup it would look just the same, I know from experience. I'm sure you can imagine how ugly that looks to me. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In that revision it was placed under the lead paragraph. I don't know why that looks so bad in IE (we're approaching the limits of my technical abilities). But if you place it directly under the infobox, rather than the lead paragraph, it works fine in IE. —Werson (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
All of which still doesn't answer my question: is there any reason whatsoever that this thing should go at the top, given that there is no discussion of population changes at the top of - or anywhere else in - these articles? Scolaire (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
My apologies to everyone. It looks like I assumed too much WP:AGF in the case of this population junkie. Caught him using six new names last night and he was adding an open template to articles that already had a "closed" one. Definately borderline vandalism. Though his data seems accurate. Very strange. But enough is enough. Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
01:29 Navan (diff; hist) . . (+923) . . Navan Anuaimh (talk | contribs) (demographics 100pc increase in ten years)
Let's still assume good faith and ask for a check user. If he/she is socking then block the IP. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I noticed that. We are dealing with a very clever fellow here, obviously. Pity about his visual aesthetic. Sarah777 (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Taking a step back, it would appear that the census guy was making systematic, good faith edits with apparently valid information. That lack of asthetic has caused other folk to go through systematically reverting their edits which in turn has forced them to change ids. It is not sock puppetry as such and neither is it vandalism. I suspect that they've put a lot of effort into their census bot but are singularly lacking in the people skills (or maybe just the time) to support their position. --Alastair Rae (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not ask them? BTW the only edit I've deleted was at Clonmel which I have since retrieved, added the 'collapse' code, and reinstated. I still have doubts about its validity though. RashersTierney (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. I thought that too but what about the 10 usernames? Adding open templates to articles that already have his templates (closed version)? Ignoring all messages? Reposting redlinks over and over? I'm still only collapsing his templates where I find them, but if he continues to refuse any communication and continues to post the same templates twice and completley mess up articles, which can't be fixed 'cos he messes them even more in response) then what can we do? (I tried asking - nothing in response). Sarah777 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a re-reading from the top here indicates that the individual has been given multiple chances to engage. User:Happy Geographer started changing IDs before any of the reverting started. I do agree that the info is valid and properly inserted would be welcome. That is why I was hopeful that rigourous reverting would bring him/her to the table. Sarah's point above is right - not tolerating collapsed tables indicates the editor does not want to be part of the Wikipedia community. Nelson50T19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I've just stumbled across this controversy and thought I'd weight in. First, I think that the information this editor is adding is valid, seems to be accurate, and it is cited. Second, someone said above that they personally didn't find it interesting, but that's POV. (My own POV is that it is interesting, as it happens.) Third, it is a bit odd that the editor is not communicating and seems to be using sock puppets, but that's an etiquette issue which I don't think invalidates the edits themselves. Maybe they're unaware that people are trying to communicate with them, it's not like wiki gives an email every time someone edits your talk page, is it? I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that they are 'refusing' to communicate, we really should assume good faith here. Let's not get into a witch hunt or jump to conclusions about this person's intentions, it's not like they're setting out to vandalise anything, and this is a good contribution to wiki which probably only needs a bit of an aesthetic cleanup. $0.02 --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I am investigating the possibility of setting up a Wikimedia chapter in Ireland. Such a task would be non-trivial and would involve legal and financial obligations.
A "critical mass" of editors (10—20 min.) willing to be active members of the chapter is required before the formation of a chapter. I would be grateful if those interested in establishing an Irish chapter would participate in discussion of such at Talk:Wikimedia Ireland on Meta.
Editors with legal qualifications would be of particular help, even if they are unwilling to be active members of such a chapter in future. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
pre-independence people
Just wondering - looking at this edit - [6]
Irish tennis players such as Joshua Pim (his family had a department store on George's Street) had the tricolour beside their names, this was changed to St Patrick's Cross - and now its the Union Jack - just wondering - have we a position? are there precedents? ClemMcGann (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a similar conflict of what nationality to call people. It sometimes seems to me that unless a person born before 1922 was a dynamite-carrying member of the Fenians they are are labelled "British" or "Anglo-Irish". Robert Boyle, for example, despite dying 110 years before the act of union and bearing a Gaelic surname is described as being "British" by citizenship and "Anglo-Irish" by ethnicity. I find it incredibly obnoxious. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I've considered opening an RFC on the matter. In terms of the people that edit those articles, we are a minority. In terms of the Wikipedia community, the people that insist on adding "British" and "Anglo-Irish" to articles on Irish people are in the minority. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Done --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
![[4]](http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-IMAGES/SIXTERXML-IMAGES/images/ie1.jpg){kind=link}
