An editor has decided to create new categories using the administarive county borders and has set about changing the location of numerous areas including Oldbawn and Saggart[1]. Just said I would inform everyone. Finnegas (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
OMG! You mean he's using the actual county to say where people live as opposed to the county that was abolished? Shocking! What next? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Laurel Lodged has a long record of renaming categories and articles without discussion. He has made hundreds of disruptive edits of that nature. I started reverting these, leading to a proposal, which he supports, to have me topic-banned. I proposed a topic ban on Laurel Lodged as a more satisfactory solution. If you would like to have a say, both proposals are here. Brocach (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't import problems from elsewhere, Brocach! That AN/I case you mentioned was a case against you and not at all related to this case. The Bannertalk19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no specific objection to creating categories based on the so-called administrative counties, but for the Dublin region, these Locations in X categories have a lot overlap with the Town and villages in X. I'm not sure why we have a Town and villages in Dublin (city) category when we already had a Locations in Dublin (city). Perhaps for cities, we could have a Places in X like Places in Leeds. Anyway, I think the whole category tree, needs a good re-organisation. Snappy (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Snappy has a good point. The reason that I created identical categories for the other counties was because of the prior existance of the Dublin city one. I noticed that the majority of locations in the cat were not in fact in the city. With the new cats, they are now distributed to their proper homes. However, Snappy is right - there is a huge overlap with the "Towns and villages" tree scheme. There are some places that are ill defined (e.g. The Back of the Pipes, Dublin) and so are Locations as opposed to villages. Others are quite well defined (e.g. Templeogue) and so it's debatable as to whether it should be in the Locations cat. So when is a location just a location and not a village? Is Pimlico, Dublin a village? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
As a start I would propose to merge Town and villages in Dublin (city) into Locations in Dublin (city). While certain places like Pimlico and Ranelagh were villages outside the city, today they are just suburbs, even if they retain a village 'feel' to them. The counties need to be treated differently as some of them are quite rural (e.g. Fingal). Snappy (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Should modern counties or the traditional 32 counties be used when categorising Ireland related categories? What is your opinion?
Consensus has already been gained on GAA articles that the traditional 32 be used Finnegas (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Given the very slight hold that the newer local government units have on the popular imagination, I'd generally favour using the 32 for virtually all purposes, with the possible exception of categories that relate to matters strictly confined to one of the new creations; hard to think of any, but if, say, there was a sudden need for a category for "Mayors of Fingal" I wouldn't object. I would also use the 32 invariably in terms of describing where a person is from - because that is how virtually anyone in Ireland would answer if asked "what county are you from?" - and would certainly object to edits (they have occurred!) that describe someone as being "from" or "born in" one of the new units before the 2001 Act. Brocach (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Brocach, how many times are you going to repeat the false claim that the 2001 Act created new counties?
Hmm. "It didn't create any counties." Just remind me when, for example, Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown came into existence so I can fully appreciate the value of your criticism and prepare a contrite response. Brocach (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Continue to use both. The status quo for the last two-and-a-half years has been that we use both the traditional counties, and the 5 "new" counties (i.e. N & S Tipp, created in 1899, plus the three 1994 divisions of County Dublin: Fingal, DunLaoghaire-Rathdown, & South Dublin). This works very neatly, because each of those 5 new counties is a sub-divisions of just one pre-1899 county. So we have Category:County Tipperary, and as a sub-category we have Category:South Tipperary and Category:North Tipperary. Similarly, the new divisions of County Dublin are sub-categories of Category:County Dublin ... and in each case, the sub-categories such as Category:Buildings and structures in County Tipperary are divided in the same way. This way, readers or editors looking for a topic can navigate there either though the 32-county framework, or through the new administrative counties. This is particularly useful with Dublin, where a huge proportion of Ireland's population is located (there are more ppl in Dublin city+County than in the whole of Munster, which is divided into 6 counties). Having Dublin divided into 4 sub-areas makes for more manageable category sizes, and using the administrative boundaries provides a stable and neutral framework for doing so. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Londonderry/Derry IMoS violations in regards to Derry GAA articles
This discussion has proved somewhat inconclusive and a more recent and active discussion has taken place. The results are now being discussed at the IMoS talk page and I suggest that editors with a view who have not yet expressed them should do so there. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)11:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As I said I would to Brocach the last day I was active, I have brought this issue to a board of peers, though Scolaire sort of beat me to it in a way.
Having failed with trying to have the County Londonderry categories deleted and replaced with County Derry ones for GAA articles amongst other back-door attempts to bypass IMoS, Brocach recently went about amending see also links for almost all Derry GAA club articles. Whilst he was correct to fix the link, i.e. "List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs#Derry" to "List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry" [2], [3], he also added the #Derry to other articles for example: [4] and [5].
Due to the potential IMoS violation ([6] - using the Lissan GAC article as the general example) I amended the links further by adding "GAA" after Derry to give: "List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry GAA". For this hash link to work I also modified the actual article by removing the pipe-link for all the County GAA's so that it would state "Derry GAA" etc. Brocach reverted all changes, citing no need for the article to state GAA after each county board as "GAA county" is stated at the top of the article. As well citing that there is no need for it as IMoS backs it. Note that IMoS only states "usually be abbreviated to", not that it must be:
Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the entity; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry, and Derry GAA (which will usually be abbreviated to Derry).
Unpipe-link all county board section links in List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland so that they say Derry GAA not Derry etc. especially seeing as the name of it according to Derry GAA is "The Derry County Board of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) (Irish: Cummann Lúthchleas Gael Coiste Contae Dhoire) or Derry GAA is one of the 32 county boards of the GAA in Ireland" - not "Derry" on it own.
Amend related articles so that they state "List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA" etc. - requires above proposal to be implemented to work
A declaration in IMoS that "(which will usually be abbreviated to Derry)" should apply only in an in-text context within GAA related articles after it is used fully in it's first instance. This means stating "Derry GAA" not "Derry" in links/templates/categories.
In my view these are a very reasonable set of proposals to clarify what is actually being referred to and to fix the IMoS violations and potential violations. Mabuska(talk)18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose proposal 2: Firstly because the proposal is badly worded. Since the proposal is to unpipe-link all county board section links, it should say "...so that they say X GAA not X" to make clear that all 32 counties will be equally affected, rather than specifying a single county (Derry), which only causes confusion. Secondly because making such changes for all 32 counties just to address a disagreement between editors over a single county (Derry) is bad policy IMO. Oppose proposal 3 for essentially the same reasons, plus the fact that List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland would have to have section headings of "Galway GAA", "Leitrim GAA" etc. which are redundant and pointless in a list of GAA clubs. Oppose proposal 4 because it involves adding complexity and ambiguity to IMOS. Common sense should dictate when "Derry" or "Derry GAA" is used. IMOS is not a blunt instrument to force one format or another to be used. Support proposal 1, provided all other templates in that category are also renamed. It is one instance of where "GAA clubs" actually provides clarity. Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. (This discussion should in any case be taking place at at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic games.) There is absolutely no violation of the IMoS: in fact the IMoS provides that "Derry GAA" will usually be abbreviated to "Derry". The name of any GAA county's football team, for example, is just the county name, e.g. "Derry" or "Tipperary". Mabuska complains above that I reverted dozens of changes he made without discussion - well, if one makes changes without discussion, and they are reverted, one is expected to open a discussion on the talk page. Did he do that? No. His reverted template change would have left Derry as the only GAA county template with the "GAA" after the name of the county - I prefer consistency. That template has a talk page. Did he take the matter there? Of course not.
So, having had controversial edits reverted, and having failed to utilise the talk pages, he comes here - avoiding the Gaelic Games page - to seek support to make hundreds of edits to GAA articles in order to address a supposed IMoS problem that doesn't exist.
Incidentally, Mabuska claimed weeks ago on my talk page, and does so here again, that it was I who inserted "usually abbreviated to Derry". I didn't, but I completely agree with it, both as a statement of fact and as an IMoS guideline. Brocach (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, you reverted moves before a discussion (accidentally going the other way than your wishes) was ended. So why complain about non-discussion when you plain ignore an ongoing-discussion? The Bannertalk21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose 2,3,4. I don't really care where the template sits . The rest appear to be a solution in search of a problem Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Before proceeding further, can you please specify which guideline in IMOS is being violated or potentially violated, and how? Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The word "usually" is an accident waiting to happen. "Usually" has no place in a manual; it either is or it is not. Toleave it in place is a licence for chaos. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
From Glenullin GAC: "The club is a member of the Derry GAA." It would be inappropriate to abbreviate this to "Derry". Usually, however, it is both appropriate and proper to abbreviate it (see my comment herehere, a less smart-ass response). If you can phrase that in a way that is not "a licence for chaos", please do. Scolaire (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The proposal begins "Seeing as the whole situation is a mess of IMoS violation or potential IMoS violation". What does this mean? It's a simple question. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Laurel's comment. Acting dumb in a clear attempt at stone-walling the issue along with failing to provide an actual proper reason for objecting to the proposals. How?...
"All county board section links in List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland are not links to Derry GAA." - what does "etc." means? Do likewise for the rest of the links, i.e. remove the pipe-link - not change all to "Derry GAA".
The proposals obviously focuses on one county - what is the title of this thread? The suggestion to remove the pipe-link for the rest of the links in that one article is for the sake of article consistency if we did remove the pipe in use on the Derry GAA link.
Accusations of POV pushing to try to deride the proposal can be easily turned around as your opposition can be regarded as backing back-door attempts to bypass IMoS. Also note how there is no objection in the proposal to using "Derry" in the text of a GAA article after "Derry GAA" has been used in the first instance. That's really anti-Derry POV pushing isn't it?
An editor as experienced as you knows the IMoS and how it is being violated. Londonderry for the county and Derry for the city. The "usually abbreviated to" for Derry GAA is a recent addition by Brocach reworded by yourself with the obvious intent to use "Derry" on it's own when referring to the county. I removed it stating it wasn't discussed, you put it back in stating let's discuss it now. We never had a proper discussion on it so as far as I am concerned it has no real authority of community backing. At the start I could agree to the sense of it, I no longer do seeing as it is clearly being used out of the context it was apparently for (before your rewording of it): when used in the text of a GAA article after the full term is already fully used in it's first instance. It makes no sense whatsoever in regards to links or templates and in that case it can be easily classified as IMoS violating and so that line needs clarified hence my proposal to add such clarification to it.
Just to note the comment of Scolaire's that he linked to above [7] - shows the lack of reason from Scolaire in regards to this issue. It is clear that Laurel proposed using the full title of "Derry GAA" instead of Derry or County Derry etc. with Scolaire convoluting Laurel's comment to mean stating "Derry GAA (or more formally the "Derry GAA County Board")" instead etc. which they then used as their reason to oppose Laurel's suggestion. And who is POV pushing? As such I will reserve any future responses to comments that have some form of reason. Mabuska(talk)11:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Please remain civil. I am neither dumb nor playing dumb. I am not playing card games or any other games. I am not attempting to stonewall any issue; I merely asked a civil question in the interests of helping the discussion along. The comment about POV-pushing was ill-advised, and I have withdrawn it. I hope you feel my detailed reasons for opposing three of the four proposals are clearer. However, my basic question is the same, and I feel that it remains unanswered: how can following IMOS guidelines be a violation of IMOS? If IMOS ackowledges that there are exceptions to the rule, and specifies that "Derry GAA", abbreviated to "Derry" is one of those exceptions (and I added that bit after a lengthy discussion, with no objections at the time), then how can anybody violate IMOS by following that guideline? Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's spell it out then; the IMOS is so vague as to be unuseable. The vagueness was only recently put in without adequate discussion. It should never have been allowed. It remained because others were persuaded that the ambiguity in it would not be abused. Certaineditors have abused that trust. The proposed set (and by the way it's a set, not a preferendum) remedies the problem. It is also consistent with the Jan 3 decision at WP:CFD on Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers. That decision reflects what reasonable, neutral people think about such issues. To them, the issues involved are really rather trivial. If it was up to them, the proposal would pass. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think that adding extra layers of complexity to a "vague" guideline will make it less vague. All it will do is multiply the possible interpretations that people can edit-war over. You are also being inconsistent. You said that 'the word "usually" is an accident waiting to happen; "usually" has no place in a manual", but you are in favour of keeping the word and adding more accidents-in-waiting to it! And, by the way, I don't know what you have spelled out but you still haven't answered my simple question:
Because it would be just too embarrassing to admit that no IMoS guideline is violated, and that this whole discussion is therefore premised on a mistake. Brocach (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
True, after you have changed the Manual of Style according to your wishes and made it as vague and ambiguous as possible. It is an old trick: change the rules and then claim that you did not break the new rules (as you would have done under the old ones). The Bannertalk15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
And so concludes Match 1 of "I'm a silly bugger". Tune in next week folks for the round we like to call "Let me spell it out ffor you again". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
@Scolaire - no-one else seemed to misunderstand the "badly worded" proposal so far.
@Brocach - actually the IMoS discussion page is where this should of been put, not here or at the GAA project page. Obviously you would agree to the problem you added into the IMoS - made worse by Scolaire rewording it to make it more vague. Scolaire can go on about what is being violated in IMoS when their editing of your addition created his vindication for stating "what's wrong?" whilst also creating the vagueness and lack of clarity in it that is at present being abused to vindicate the usage of "Derry" in a non-context manner giving the impression that it represents the name of the county rather than simply a GAA county board.
There is obviously no consensus for Brocach's addition and Scolaire's rewording of it seeing as so far 4 out of 6 editors back change (yes too small a sample for even a rough consensus) - so a simpler solution might be to propose removing it altogether - but clarity would be a better way to move forward, hence proposal 4.
Counter-proposal - I could drop proposal 2 and 3 and replace them with a proposal for the removal of the "#Derry" part of the link, which was only added into most by Brocach recently once the "County Derry" categories he created had got deleted by the bot after a CfD.
Counter-proposal 2 - Instead of counter-proposal 1, we could drop proposal 2 and 3 and pipe-link [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry]] to [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Derry GAA clubs]] instead. This puts it into a proper context and avoids the obvious (and quite purposeful in light of Brocach's recent actions) hint that it is referring to "County Derry" instead of "Derry GAA". This means no pipe-links in that article need to be removed and leaves no chance of alleged broken links and requires little effort by a single editor to implement. This counter-proposal would sort Scolaire's stated concerns with proposals 2 and 3.
Oh no, Mabuska. It is a long-established practice to strike through a comment if somebody has found it problematic, and make a new comment after the strike-through. Try to leave out the ad hominem, will you? Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not ad hominem. There is no problem with strikes, though extra info you should add in a new comment directly after it. Otherwise it can be considered deceptive seeing as it still had the old time-stamp. Though I will concede it has no importance and makes little difference to this topic.
1 I've not been idle. The work has commenced at WP:CFD - see Hurlers by GAA county. All supporters welcome.
2 My offer at Tiperary GAA Hurlers was conditional on getting support. That support has been conspicuous by its absence. Instead of carping, help with the heavy lifting.
3 I was edit blocked for 48 hours in defence of Tipperary GAA hurlers. For those that supported, you have a fresh opportunity to defend all that it entails at the WP:ANI case listed below.
4 My next plan of campaign is for the NI hurler categories. After that, I'll commence the camogie cats. All assistance gratefully received. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Why just NI hurlers? You need to move these a whole . Propose a multi cat move instead on 1 in isolation but fair enough you're moving the stuff which is good . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Counter-proposals
As some editors have an issue with proposals 2 and 3, I will suggest alternatives that may meet those concerns:
Counter-proposal - I could drop proposal 2 and 3 and replace them with a proposal for the removal of the "#Derry" part of the link, which was only added into most by Brocach recently once the "County Derry" categories he created had got deleted by the bot after a CfD.
Counter-proposal 2 - Instead of counter-proposal 1, we could drop proposal 2 and 3 and pipe-link [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry]] to [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Derry GAA clubs]] instead. This puts it into a proper context and avoids the obvious (and quite purposeful in light of Brocach's recent actions) hint that it is referring to "County Derry" instead of "Derry GAA". This means no pipe-links in that article need to be removed and leaves no chance of alleged broken links and requires little effort by a single editor to implement.
Oppose: It gets rather confusing when someone offers four proposals, all unnecessary, to address a non-existent violation of IMoS; refuses to identify what part of IMoS is being violated; then makes a "counter-proposal" to his own four proposals, consisting of two equally uncalled for changes. Brocach (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Also Brocach nowhere did I say I was providing counter-proposals to all four proposals - only for proposals 2 and 3. So please learn to fully read editors comments before responding. Also you are the only editor to disagree with proposal 1 so it can be considered possibly a non-issue, however as three other editors agree with me on the rest shows that there is an issue with the others. Being stubborn for the sake of it doesn't work on Wikipedia as compromise and/or counter-proposals are needed to move things on. Mabuska(talk)11:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Brocach. IMOS cannot violate IMOS, therefore the original proposals were pointless, and modifying them is equally pointless. Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I've only really been involved with Brocach not Laurel Lodged in regards to the issues so I have only voiced my opinion in the one I have knowledge of. Otherwise these notifications should not be put here as they don't belong here. Mabuska(talk)19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to Scolaire's continued insistence the IMoS is actually being violated and willfully so: the IMoS states that Derry GAA will be usually abbreviated to [[Derry GAA|Derry]] - how is this met with Brocach's hash article links? Just to remind everyone this is what they are using: List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry - how does this meet the IMoS? How does this avoid confusing the GAA county for the city or the county of Londonderry? It doesn't. Opposing the addition of "GAA" to the end of the link which is clearly violating IMoS shows that the opposition from Brocach and Scolaire has more to do with POV pushing than anything else.
Scolaire can ignore the obvious fact that several editors agree with my proposals, which clearly shows that there is a problem with what is currently in the IMoS despite what they might try to claim. Maybe they don't want to admit their rewording has got it wrong, maybe they want to ensure the ambiguity remains so that it can be abused, who knows. The counter-proposals I suggested met Scolaire's secondary reasons for objecting (seeing as his original reason was a blunt oppose), and as I suspected he would, he opposed them too. Going by his recent crack-up on my talk page where he decided to totally over-react to a simple comment on etiquette, they have decided to have no further part in this discussion! As was clear to me from the start, Scolaire's opposition is based on a desire to ensure this problem remains in the IMoS regardless of what is proposed.
Like it or not Scolaire, I have identified a problem that arose out of your tinkering with the IMoS and 3 other editors agree with me - so the problem is real. Mabuska(talk)19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I am really trying to understand you, Mabuska, as someone who has made constructive edits on GAA matters, but I still see no violation. List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry uses "[[Derry GAA|Derry]]" as an abbreviation for Derry GAA which as the IMoS reasonably notes, is usually abbreviated to [[Derry GAA|Derry]]. You must have noticed that in normal usage, certainly in any media reference to GAA matters, it is absolutely the case that "Derry" is almost always used to refer Derry GAA. In the List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland, every one of the 32 counties is listed simply by the name of the GAA county in question, and nothing would be added to the usefulness of the list by adding 32 GAAs, and less by adding one "GAA" in the sole case of Derry, presumably to please those who don't like the fact that in the GAA that's how the team, the County Board, and the area administered by the county board are all known. Anyone using a list of Gaelic games club in Ireland is likely to know that, in a list grouped in 32 county sets, the set headed [[Derry GAA|Derry]]) refers not to the city of Derry, nor to the defunct administrative county of Londonderry, but to the GAA county of Derry which has existed for well over a century and has never been called anything else. I can't see the slightest possibility of confusion, and now that you have "explained" the alleged IMoS violation it is clearer than ever that there hasn't been one. Brocach (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Pot-and-kettle Scolaire - a report would only boomerang considering your actions on this matter. Also it would help matters if you'd actually answer the points and questions I've made. Continually ignoring them only makes my points that you call ad hominem even more valid. Mabuska(talk)11:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Well if this discussion which is related but not linked to LL and Brocach's GAA tit-for-tats is to be closed, then the only proposal that seems to have overwhelming support (proposal 1) should be implemented seeing as only Brocach opposed it. Mabuska(talk)11:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Implemented for all the templates at the same time? I would not support one user changing one template and leaving somebody else to do the rest. Scolaire (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion I mentioned above has now closed and the results can be seen here. The specific question about Derry/Derry GAA has been referred on to the IMOS talk page here. Please can we regard the discussion here closed as IMOS is the right place to finally decide on this particular topic. I will let the discussion there run a few days and then close it myself, if nobody else has done so by then. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)11:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seeing as this issue was leap-frogged by the GAA in general issue, I would like Kim Dent-Brown to clarify that proposal 1 should be implemented as it has 5 supports, 1 oppose and 1 who doesn't really care where it's at, so I'd call that a consensus for proposal 1, whilst the rest are obviously irrelevant now. Mabuska(talk)22:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Not everybody wastes their time all day on wikipedia to notice these things, espec seeing as i was gone there for 2 weeks or more. Mabuska(talk)
In fact I was gone from the 8th Feb till the 25th Feb, that's 17 days. That discussion was started on the 19th February and the last comment was the 21st, with it closed on 28th February. It was also on a template page I've never been too so obviously it isn't on my watchlist. The Derry GAA one had a notification placed on the 19th Feb and considering how long a watchlist can be in the space of 6 days especially when you don't check it, is it any wonder I wasn't on the ball on it Brocach? You'd be better redirecting your energy to something more productive than making half-baked smart-ass comments. Mabuska(talk)13:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I've recently been expanding the Ulster loyalism article. As part of this, I added a section on collusion with the security forces. However, one editor has removed it several times. We have been discussing it on the talkpage but with only two editors involved the discussion is going nowhere. We need input from other editors. ~Asarlaí14:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite putting my points on this matter to the contending editors a number of times, and explaining them with the help of WP essays, they offered no argument or response beyond "I think it should be in there" and now seem to be ignoring me.--Shipyard Special (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Associating modern administrative counties with pre-1994 topics
One editor, User:Laurel Lodged, who has a long history of controversial edits in relation to the modern administrative counties, has recently recommenced edits that seek, for example, to identify Irish sportspeople as being "from" the modern administrative county that they would have been born in had they been born many years later. The rugby player Cecil Boyd, for example, who was born in County Dublin 119 years before Fingal was created, has been designated by Laurel Lodged as being "from Fingal". Does anyone out there support this anachronistic rewriting of Irish articles? Brocach (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Ireland is not Palestine. Stekelis lived more than half of his life in Palestine, to where he emigrated in 1928. He agitated for the creation of the state of Israel and lived in its territory from its creation in 1948 until his death in 1967, as a citizen of that entity. Wikipedia therefore describes him as a Russian Israeli. Cecil Boyd, on the other hand, died decades before Fingal was invented. He did not advocate the creation of Fingal, never lived in a place called Fingal and died without ever imagining that the county of his birth would be partitioned for administrative purposes in 1994. Brocach (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Not true. The pointless category "Sportspeople from Fingal", created by Laurel Lodged, has become empty only because Laurel Lodged's edits to existing articles in order to shunt them into that category were corrected at source. Brocach (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Now that this cat has been nominated for deletion, you should not be removing people, but should feel free to add people if they were indeed born within the boundaries of current Fingal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You're basically asking if categories should ever be anachronistic? My answer would be, absolutely. Also, please note, her change is not to say "Cecil Boyd was born in Fingal in XXXX" - this is just a category change, not an article change. Articles can be subtle about these things, but categories are a blunt tool.
For example, take Category:People from County Mayo, which is chock full of people like Walter Liath de Burgh, who was born 200 years before the county boundaries were fixed. Yet, the official website has no issues with this anachronism, happily discussing what was happening in neolithic county mayo [8], and noting only as follows: "To speak of the 'history of County Mayo' before the latter part of the 16th century is in a sense anachronistic. For the county, as such, did not exist before Queen Elizabeth's Lord Deputy in Ireland, Sir Henry Sidney, and his subordinates undertook the shiring of Connacht about the year 1570." Thus, note the anachronism, and move on!
Think about it like this - if you're serious about ridding the category system of anachronism, you can try to fix this problem, and spend years building up an incredibly complex and sophisticated category tree that correctly categorizes everything by the thing it was called at the time (so Walter would be in "People from X", whatever county mayo was called at the time), and then if the county gets renamed or the administrative boundaries shift, you would dig up the records and ensure that people who were born after the shift are thence correctly categorized. It's absolutely hopeless, and much better to accept anachronism and not get worked up about it, because if you saw the amount of anachronism just in the Ireland tree alone it would drive you batty. So, I agree with Laurel Lodged on this particular one - assign people to categories based on modern administrative boundaries, even if such boundaries didn't exist at the time the person was born. Another separate question is whether it's worth breaking down such categorizations (rather than leaving it at broader geographic areas), but I won't comment on that - once it is agreed that you will categorize people based on subdivisions X, Y, and Z, I would not worry in the slightest about what year they were born in.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a different point here, which is interesting - which is that Category:Sportspeople from County Dublin still remains, as a sort of container category - even if County Dublin is no longer an administrative county. A fair argument could be made to say, keep the County Dublin category, but only as a container, and populate all of the people/things/etc in the lower-level categories. I guess again the broader discussion needs to be had - do you categorize people based on the "traditional" counties, the current "administrative" counties, a combination of both, etc? Again focusing on poor Cecil is useless here, we need to come up with a general rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Our friend Walter Liath de Burgh was born, raised, and died in a place which was never called County Mayo, and he never asked for it to be called County Mayo, and he never even knew such a terrible name would be foisted on his homeland in the future. Are you ready to fix that problem as well, or is there some other recency issue/bitterness at the dissolution of County Dublin? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
De Burgh was no friend of mine; but in terms of Irish county names, the place where he was from has only ever, since the invention of counties, been identified with the Irish county of Mayo. Boyd, by contrast, was born, lived and died while his place of birth was in an Irish county called Dublin. Brocach (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Or take Dorothy Dermody - as I understand it, North Tipperary was not a full county until ~2011, but she is still classified as being "from" there. Jack Dunne is from Category:Gortnahoe-Glengoole hurlers which is part of Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary - and he was born in 1858! (long before the initial split of Tipperary.) If your are serious about your crusade to rid the tree of anachronistic categories for places people are from, you have a long road ahead of you. I didn't have to search long to find those examples, and could find hundreds more.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You were lucky to find the Gortnahoe-Glengoole example Obi as Brocach has been busy expunging all such clubs from North Tipperary and South Tipperary. Expect it to disappear soon as part of his campaign. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The length of the "crusade" is largely due to reclassifications by Laurel Lodged of Tipperary and other Irish sportspeople. Feel free to check that. In general, anyone else creating or editing bio articles about Irish people uses the 32 traditional counties to identify the "from" categories; almost no-one uses the post-1994 new admin boundaries, or the 26 district council boundaries that were created in part of Ulster. Brocach (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is truly a "crusade" To Quote Churchill "we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"Finnegas (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
comment It seems there are several different arguments at play here, which I'd like to highlight:
Whether we can put someone in a category, eg People from X, where X did not exist at the time that person was born.
Whether in Ireland, the "new" administrative counties should be used in any sort of categorization scheme, or whether the "traditional" counties should only be used.
As to #1, I have given copious examples above of how such anachronism persists in all parts of wikipedia, and consensus seems to be to accept such anachronism, as attempting to fix it would lead to no end of complications (e.g. we would have to create categories for every possible "historical" name of a given place - which would complicate the category structure needlessly). Some exceptions have been made - such as Category:People from Constantinople, but these are the exception rather than the rule. Thus, I conclude that the argument that we must avoid anachronism in general does not hold any weight or consensus.
As to #2, this is a broader question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and other editors to consider. To me, it makes sense to use modern administrative boundaries in almost all cases - otherwise, you risk a certain bias towards some "traditional" notion of regional divides, with a resultant drift from reality over time. I would thus argue that, if you are dividing, that you divide by modern administrative boundaries, as these are clearly demarcated. We would not want to have some arguments over categorization based on some boundary of a county that changed in 1624, and people saying "Well, X is *really* from Y, because the boundary changed 2 days after he was born" etc. Category:Sportspeople from Fingal is currently up for deletion, so we shall also see what consensus feels about that.
Finally, as to #3, this is really the last and best argument the supporters of "old counties" may have. In the case of historical figures, we don't have a choice - we have to put them in Category:People from County Mayo, as there aren't any other cats. In the current proposed structure however, we have a choice - we still have Category:People from County Dublin and Category:People from Fingal, so you could make the argument, why do an anachronism (even if permitted elsewhere) when you can just do the more accurate categorization. I've thought of this, and my mind still comes down on the side of diffusing to the modern day cats. Otherwise, you are making a special exception because of a recent modern shift - thus there is an inherent bias, whereas my friend Walter Liath de Burgh, born long before County Mayo existed, is given no such consideration. It is also simpler, and would avoid disputes and tendentious arguments (well, the county was "called" this by some, but it didn't become official until year X, etc), to always diffuse to the most precise modern-day geographical category, anachronisms aside.
In any case, whether you agree with my conclusions or not, I hope we can continue this discussion with consideration of these three topics separately, as each one can be argued independently on its merits.
Finally, I'd like to ask if all participants can cease the edit warring which has occurred on numerous pages as a result of this - just put a stop to it, leave things where they are, and have the discussion here until we come to consensus - the edit warring is rather useless. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Adding a few examples of previous discussions on this topic, if interested
No to 1, Yes to 2, No to 3 for the following reasons (referring here to Fingal but this applies to all the newer admin counties): (1) putting in a "Fingal" category someone who died 50 years before Fingal existed is as absurd as putting Leo Tolstoy in a Soviet Union category; the more so because Fingal's existence is likely to end in the next couple of years, making it rather more transient than the USSR. Moreover, the County Dublin in which anyone born there before 1994 is "from", has continued to exist as a legal and cultural entity throughout the ephemeral existence of the purely bureaucratic construct of Fingal. (2) It would in principle be reasonable to categorise as "from Fingal" anyone born within that temporary administrative district's boundaries, i.e. from 1994 until about 2015. However it is very unlikely that a single person meeting WP notability criteria satisfies that condition. If there are lots of famous pre-teens in that part of North Dublin, I stand corrected. In either case, anyone born before 1994 in what is now Fingal was actually born in County Dublin, was not born in Fingal, and is therefore "from" County Dublin. (3) The fact of Fingal's existence doesn't mean that post-1994 births should preclude Dublin categories. County Dublin hasn't gone away, you know. The creation of Fingal and other administrative divisions did not abolish a single one of the traditional counties of Ireland, which - as the 1994 law explicitly states - remain in existence for all purposes except local government. Brocach (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that nobody should be in the Fingal category if born before 1994, as the county didn't exist then. County Dublin still exists are a traditional and cultural entity but was abolished in law and has had no legal basis since 1993 when the area formerly known as "County Dublin" was re-defined in legislation solely as the "Dublin Region" under the Local Government Act, 1991 (Regional Authorities) (Establishment) Order, 1993. The existence of Fingal is far from ephemeral, it is a legal entity, a county just the same as County Meath or County Kildare, check numerous Acts of the Oireachtas for this. No changes are planned to any of the Dublin Area councils in 2015/2016, on the contrary Fingal's existence will be promoted more when at the next general election the constituency of Dublin Fingal comes into being. Snappy (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Note Brocach continues to de-populate Sportspeople from... categories even while this debate is on-going. What censure is appropriate for this behaviour? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Response: probably the same censure as applies to those who ignore this discussion and add to the Fingal category people who plainly don't belong there, as in this edit or this one or this one. All by - need I say - Laurel Lodged. I don't quite get why it's OK to make controversial edits if you're Laurel Lodged, but wrong to revert them pending the outcome here if you're not Laurel Lodged. Brocach (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
No actually It is correct procedure to populate a category which happens to be under CFD; it is incorrect procedure to de-populate it entirely, something that both Brocach and Finnegas have twice attempted. I am also amused at the co-ordinated withdrawal of the Fingal nomination from CFD. The ostensible reason was to centralise discussion. Call me cynical, but I think that it had more to do with the fact that apart from the two co-ordinators, nobody else supported the nomination. In the face of imminent failure, a late "withdrawal" offers hope for a reprieve here. I hope that members of this project will not reward such cynical forum shopping. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Response: anyone interested should have a look at LL's recent edit history, which mostly consists of depopulating long-established "traditional county" categories to move people, or whole categories, into new "admin county" categories of his own creation, all while pretending to engage here in a discussion about whether such new categories should exist. This is an effort to create a fait accompli, just like the hundreds of controversial GAA edits by LL that had to be painstakingly reversed over a period of months. The cynicism is almost surprising. The "depopulation" complained of consists of editors correctly reverting bold edits made by LL without discussion. And for the record, I opened this topic here before the CfD discussion was started independently by another editor, so it is hardly remarkable that I should be glad to see the discussion focussed here. Brocach (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Response To Laurel Lodged:Yes you are incredibly cynical!! You would criticise me and Brocach if we got you a sainthood! You wanted to centeralise discussion and we withdrew our opposition to facilitate this. Finnegas (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Brocach and Finnegas, I rarely agree with LL about either substance or procedure, but on this occasion he is right. LL had a nasty bout a few years ago depopulating the categories for the traditional countries, but that's behind us and Brocach is wrong to say that LL has been depopulating categories; what LL has been doing is diffusing articles to more specific sub-categories, which is routine category maintenance. So long as the categories exist, they should be populated ... and if editors think they should not exist, then nominate them at CFD. And don't depopulate them just because you disapprove of them. If they are merged at CFD, the changes will be made by a bot ... and if they are kept, then they should remain populated.
Specifically, to "more specific sub-categories" created in the last couple of days by Laurel Lodged while discussions here are ongoing about whether here is any need for those categories. (There isn't.) I am disappointed in you, BHG. Brocach (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Brocach, you appear have very little understanding of how categories are created and removed. A category can only be created by one editor (there is no WIkipedia:Categories for creation), and once created, articles can be diffused into it from its parent categories.
If other editor(s) believe that the category is (as you say) not needed, then the solution is simple: nominate it at WP:CFD for upmerger (using WP:TWINKLE, or by tagging the catregory with {{subst:cfm|categ-to-be-merged-to}}). If there is a consensus to do, then a bot will perform the recategorisation .... and if there is not a consensus to do so, then a the category will stay.
What you and Finnregas have been doing is to empty try to delete the categories (by emptying them) without seeking a consensus. That's disruptive, and that's why I warn you both that if you persist, it may lead to sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
These are categories for people-by-place, not an exercise in historical geography
I rarely agree with Obiwankenobi, but on this occasion he gets it in a nutshell: "always diffuse to the most precise modern-day geographical category".
I want to set out at greater length why there are lots of good reasons for this:
Geographical names change.
Some examples from many across Ireland:
Queen's County (1556) → County Leix or Laoighis (1922) → County Laois (later 20th century)
This gives us two choices: a) split up all geographical categories so that we can categorise according to the names applied at the time, or b) accept the anachronism and keep the categories unified.
The alternative would disrupt navigation (which per WP:CAT#Overview is the main purpose of categories). The people concerned were all from the same area, so we categorise them together because they come from the same place rather than because they come from a place which was consistently named.
Anyone who wants to avoid anachronism in categorising people by county should start by setting out in full the category structure which avoids it.
So far as I can see it would be a huge and sprawling mess of confusion, with a mass of categories for each area depending on which era we were talking about. Even if someone was masochistic enough to try devising such a structure, that's only the start of the problem. How on earth are editors going to populate these categories without access to a detailed set of historical county maps, which show all the enclaves and exclaves which used to exist? Many editors will never have heard of these former counties or be aware of the boundary changes. To take just one example, how many editors know where the boundary between Counties Dublin and Carlow was before County Wicklow was carved out of them in 1606?
Is there really an anachronism?
An assertion repeated above is that we shouldn't categorise people "by places which didn't exist when they were alive". I think that this is at best simplistic, and at worse nonsense.
As a simple example, consider Glendalough. It's still much the same place as it was 900 years ago: valley, lakes, monastic ruins, etc. Since then it has seen roads and new houses, changes to field patterns and afforestation, but it's still the same place. It's a complete nonsense to say that at any given point in that history, the place didn't exist. It has existed throughout the last 1000 years and more.
All that has changed is the label we attach to the wider area around Glendalough: it was part of the Kingdom of Lenister until the era of King John, then part of County Dublin until 1606, when it became part of the new County Wicklow. Same place, packaged differently.
Or take, Daingean. Whether we call it Philipstown, King's County or "Daingean, County Offaly", it's the same place.
That's the thing about the county names; they are just labels for places. The text of articles should use the historically appropriate terminology for that topic. But for categories, which cover a wide range of topics, why not just use the most up-to-date labelling system? It's clearly defined, unambiguous, and easily checked against current maps. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
The basis of Wikipedia is that we follow the sources. I see no reason to try working out whether someone who has a source saying they were born in Tipperary was really from North Tipperary or South Tipperary. If the sports people want to say they played for one or the other based on some modern interpretation I'm not going to argue with them and I'll leave that to that other project. However here I see no reason to delete a Tipperary category and try moving people from it to one or other of the modern categories. We can have three categories and reference between them. This is getting as bad as the debate over a person who had a biography that said they came from Londonderry and there was one bunch trying to change that to Derry saying it was the city whereas there was no evidence saying whether it was the county or not before they went to America. If we follow what the sources say then that is enough as far as I'm concerned and stop trying to find 'the truth'. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the current setup is not to delete any Tipperary categories, but rather to keep Tipperary as a container (same as County Dublin), since the split was within the bounds of the county itself. And if there was someone, where one could not sort out whether they were "from" North or South, then leaving them in Tipperary would be fine. But if you know they lived their whole lives in Village X which is now in South Tipperary, then diffuse them down. I rarely agree with BrownHairedGirl, but on this occasion she gets it right - very well argued above. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Obi is right. The categories for County Tipperary and County Dublin are container categories, which serve as parents for the categories by subdivision. I strongly opposed LL's attempt a few years ago to delete them, and would oppose it if tried again.
Nobody will be surprised to read that BHG and I agree on very few things. In this case, however, I entirely agree with her logic; it's cogent and compelling. Sadly, I think that it has now been the impetous to take the cause in an entirely contrary direction. Instead of deleting or upmerging to higher entities (E.g. Tipperary), Finnegas is now going to the opposite extreme - diffusing to micro levels (e.g. Category:Sportspeople from Clonsilla and Category:Sportspeople from Donabate). Extremeism, in either direction, is best avoided. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a long standing practice for diffusion in Ireland. The path is Ireland → Republic of Ireland → county. Occasionally one sees Province interposed between RoI and County, a practice of which I don't entirely agree. In any case, I have never created a "Foo in Town" or "Fooin Village" category. I have only ever created "Town" or "Village" categories. I have not engaged in the willy-nilly creation of sub-county micro-categories. Please desist in this practice. It can only land you in more trouble than you are in already. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would I be in trouble I have done nothing wrong. Please desist in your practice of creating willy-nilly categories of admin counties which does not follow "The path is Ireland → Republic of Ireland → county." Thank You Finnegas (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not "classic WP:POINTy disruption". WP Pointy states"As a rule, one engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." It was my sole intention to demonstrate that there is an alternative to dividing the Sportspeople/People from Categories along admin conties. One can use the village or location from which they are from.I was hoping to gain support for this idea not opposition. What happened to assuming good faith?. In addition, BHG can you clarify why Laurel Lodged admin county categories are ok if the is Ireland → Republic of Ireland → county. Finnegas (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm quite sure you agree with these categorizations. Sheesh. Are you ready to divide all of Ireland, and Europe for that matter, into your people-from-a-village categories? Seriously? This is not standard practice, and you're clearly just trying to prove a point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree that this is over-categorization. Also, could Finnegas stop talking about "admin counties" as if they are some different class of county; they are not. There is no difference in Irish law between Fingal and Meath. Snappy (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Seriously
How long do you all want to continue this? If we spend a few days here, I think we can come to a reasonable consensus - then we can go back to creating cats and categorizing things without reverts and edit wars. So please, until then, stop creating cats in this tree, and even consider to stop diffusing things until this discussion has run it's course. This stuff isn't so urgent that it needs to be rectified instantly - we can be patient.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I propose this as the basis for IMoS guidance: (1) People (& organisations, institutions, publications, etc.) who were from one of the 32 traditional counties before the creation of Fingal et al. should be categorised as from that traditional county. (2) No-one who died or left before the creation of the new counties should be categorised as being "from" such places. (3) Living people who are from an Irish county should be described according to whatever they, or reliable sources, identify as their county. Brocach (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
That is not a compromise. That's just an expanded version of your original proposal at the top of the discussion.
Limerick have been moved to Limerick (Ireland) by user:Red Slash, without any discussion taking place on the talk page of Limerick or here. There have been several discussions over the years and none of them established a consensus for a move. Snappy (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I've undone a handful of the link changes, following the move back. But I don't have the use of a bot, so somebody needs to change all these back. Scolaire (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
When I first came across the Black Irish article last year it seemed to be a perfect example of an article that had lost the run of itself. It was an eclectic mish-mash of Fir Bolg, Tuatha Dé Danann, Spanish armada, Basques, genetic markers, and anything else that could be used to show why some Irish people had black hair and blue eyes and not red hair and freckles. After reading the opinions on the Talk page of the article, I proposed on 19 March that, due to lack of citations, original research, primary sources, and what appears to be coat-racking, the article needed to be radically pruned - in fact back to the lede. I left the proposal there for six weeks and received only one response, which was in favour. On 7 May I wrote on the Talk page that, if no-one objected, I would carry out the pruning. No-one objected. So I pruned. Now a new editor has arrived on the scene, reverted my edit, and we're back to square one, laying the groundwork for a fresh series of half-baked theories. Would anyone here be interested in contributing their thoughts on this? Hohenloh + 00:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This page [[9]] was redirected to [[10]] without notifying anyone or getting consensus by [[11]]. Is he allowed to do that without consensus and if not how does one undo a redirect? ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
It has been reverted. You actually have to move it back manually. Idk why JonC moved the page, but the hostility is getting a bit silly now from all sides /: --82.8.226.105 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference of opinion on what the "county" name is, as a location for towns especially in Tipperary. A lot of articles have been changed to show that towns, villages, rivers, etc, are in South Tipperary and North Tipperary, rather than County Tipperary. One reason given is "Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use modern names" - but "County Tipperary" isn't a "old" name by any means. That is the most commonly used name for that region, and it makes perfect sense to use it in articles. For example, a quick search on Google for a location, like Puckane, shows that nearly all pages use "Co. Tipperary" as the county. I know we've had similar discussions in the past but I can't find any - if someone can point to the past discussions I'd appreciate it. Others opinions are also welcome. I started reverting, but I've stopped that pending finding out if there was a consensus to make those changes. --HighKing (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This has gone on too long. Without you even having to say, I knew who you were referring to. I've opened a thread at ANI that Laurel Lodged should be topic banned from this area. --RA (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The nominator recently made an edit to William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber that had to be reverted by another editor. The rationale offered by that editor was that "North Tipperary is the present county name". The nominator's rationale of "Common" cut no ice and the nominator has not reverted Bramber. The ironic thing is that Tipperary, let alone North Tipperary, did not exist in Bramber's time! Yet the nominator would have us believe that the name of a former entity is preferable to the current name of the entity. Why didn't he just use the former name of the entity in Bramber's time - "Clan Kennedy country" or "O'Fogarty country"? That would have been a hoot. No, the only sensible thing is to use the modern name, per wiki "Use modern names" policy. Wiki "Common" does not have superiority over "Use modern names". Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree with HK and have said my piece at AN/I. This systematic deprecation of County Tipperary as a valid location by a single editor has to stop. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
See Overarching category structure discussion above. This is to advise that Brocach is flouting the overarching structure. He is adding "GAA clubs in County Foo" to the "Ireland" category. They already sit in the relevant Republic cateogry. See here. The rule is to diffuse to the lowest category (i.e. the RoI). Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
If he wants to delete the ROI cat b/c it's not valid/useful, then let him propose it at CFD. I think the Ireland cat structure allows this. Note this clause: "special categories that are always All-island in scope, like certain sports - in which case, there is no point creating the RoI/NI split below." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right - let it go to CFD. As it stands, it looks like a stealth de-population might be in progress. Brocach has form for that trick. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Not that GAA is one of my interests, but I'd have thought it should just be on an all Ireland basis. Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
County Colours/GAA
Hi,so Im looking for some fellow Irish feedback on the matter of county colours, I was trying to improve the county of Ireland article/s by the addition of de facto county colours, I agree their origin is from the GAA and their format varies, being de facto this will occur, for example the inclusion of the arms on top of the colours, as shown with their use in a totally non sporting context outside the government buildings at Dublin castle which is a very good reference for their ubiquitous usage today outside of sport
. All variants incorporate the same colours which is an important most of which are taken directly from those used on the official arms, they are used in the county context on other non-English Wikipedia sites for example you can see here http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:ComtatsIrlanda. Personally I see their constant usage alongside the European and Ireland flag at numerous buildings and non sporting events, do other irish users think it is factual or not to say that they have now far outgrown their origins and are considered synonymous with the counties as an entity today after such a long time as suggested in the following link [12] or that they still are constrained. Caomhan27 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Disagree entirely. GAA county colours are matters for the GAA only. The counties, as counties, do not have colours. The Liverpool article has a coat of arms, but not colours. Should it show red, or blue and white? --Scolaire (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I respect that opinion scolaire, however what I am really asking for is your life experience of their usage rather than if you agree they should or should not be considered the county colours, so I don't think that analogy given is relevant to the question, the fact that there wasnt any official designated flag prior meant there was a void which the original GAA designed flags have now seem to have filled, Today via their consistent usage they appear to be de facto county flags, so in essence what im asking is in other peoples experience have they also consistently seen their usage at non gaa events, by organizations as county flags flown alongside Ireland and European flags as shown here or like the government usage at Dublin castle in the reference above in your own county? as I do in my own and in various others.Caomhan27 (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Although many vehicles of County Clare bear the colours saffron and blue, I have never seen these colours at the Council Offices in Ennis. Flags showing the saffron and blue are almost exclusively used in some GAA-related form. The Bannertalk23:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Scolaire has it exactly. These are the colours of sports' teams. They are not the flags of the counties. Compare, for example, with coats of arms, which county councils have registered with Chief Herald.
A comparable thing I've noticed is that hotels (especially) in Munster have taken to flying the Munster rugby banner (red), where before they would have flown (and I expect still intend) the genuine Munster banner (blue). This doesn't mean we should run off and change the Munster article to spread this error. --RA (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks banner, I think that's sidestepping the genuine question and being slightly facetious RA however thanks for the response Caomhan27 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't being facetious. I was just showing another example (from a different sport) where people confuse sporting flags with the flags of places or regions. --RA (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok no worries RA i'll take your word for it, I think everyone agrees there was/is no official county flags for example registered with the chief herald to begin with, so the munster rugby flag usurpation of the official munster flag would be an error but also would be a different situation entirely. The counties had no flag to begin with and have only ever competed to a huge country wide audience under the designed county GAA flags starting many years ago which is why they have become so popular and been adopted as county flags outside of the GAA events, I am not suggesting the are official in any way, merely that from every day experience in various counties they seem to have been adopted as de facto county flags and are used on other non English Wikipedia's as such, being used outside government buildings in Dublin castle shows the integration is quite extensive.Caomhan27 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated this featured article for FA review because my request on the article talk page for improvements has met with silence. The article seems to me to fall short on criteria 1b and 1c, and most seriously 2c: something like a third, possibly nearer a half, of the statements are uncited. Tim riley (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:IRE-CATS sets out WP Ireland's conclusions on category hierarchy. However, an experienced admin (Jc37 (talk·contribs)) has questioned whether these have sufficient support from the community. In particular, he closed this CFD as "Merge, but split out Northern Ireland", and has since insisted that there was a consensus to exclude Northern Ireland from the Ireland hierarchy. In contrast, I believe that the pertinent comments within that discussion were about the need for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to each have a separate sub-category.
Follow WP:IRE-CATS. I have just read the above-mentioned CfD and as far as I can see all of the arguments centre on towns and cities, and there is no assertion of a need to exclude NI. Where it is mentioned at all, it is in an all-Ireland context. One participant said, "What is wrong here is that Category:People by city in Ireland should have been split into two sub-categories: Category:People by city in Northern Ireland and Category:People by city in the Republic of Ireland, to match the parent cats Category:Cities in Northern Ireland and Category:Cities in the Republic of Ireland" (italics added), and another followed with "Agree that there should be a ROI / NI breakout." This second participant has written in WP:IRE-CATS, "Wholeheartedly agree Well done - a comprehensive system. I can see no gaps" (bold in original). The close was done on a faulty reading of the discussion. The closer is also in error on Fayenatic's talk page in saying that IRE-CATS was written by one person. A quick look at the history of that guideline will show that it was a copy of a WikiProject talk page discussion, and that there was a consensus established before it was created. It was simply a bad close. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah annoying when things like that disappear under your feet ;-) I hadn't read the reference here or I'd have probably put a note here too. Dmcq (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Follow WP:IRE-CATS Broadly speaking. I think the guidelines needs improving and clarifying but broadly-speaking it looks fine. In the main, I just wonder what is the entry point to the Foo in Ireland categories. For example, Sport in Europe could have a subcategory of sport in Ireland (GAA, rugby, hockey, cricket, etc.). It may be possible that Foo by County would naturally lead to Foo in Ireland (as opposed to Foo in Republic of Ireland). Sport, religion, etc. are obvious example where all of Ireland is the reference point for "country", irrespective of 100 years of political partition. --RA (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
But Ireland isn't very like those places. In certain cases (sports and religion being the most obvious), Ireland is a country and human activities are organised on an all-Ireland basis. The guideline mentions Foo by Country but seems to disallow Foo in Ireland being a sub-category of Foo by County. Current examples that are contrary to this include:
Follow WP:IRE-CATS With two remarks: 1) The description of Foo in Ireland should make absolutely clear that the meaning of Ireland in this case in the "Island Ireland", not the state. That will avoid some hiccups. 2) Foo in Ireland should be categorized both by country (as subcats of "Foo in the United Kingdom" and "Foo in the Republic of Ireland") and geographical (as subcat of "Foo in Ireland" the island) The Bannertalk19:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Follow WP:IRE-CATS, which describes a long-established consensus on how to categorise things in Ireland. The closer may have been within the limits of admin discretion to close the discussion as "merge" ... but the idea of taking Northern Ireland out of Ireland was not based on the discussion. As Scolaire wrote in that respect, it was "simply a bad close". However, even if the closer was sincere in making that close, there is no excuse for his protracted edit-warring to assert that removal of the parent category, which was not even mentioned in the closing statement. So I have restored the parent category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Follow WP:IRE-CATS – I too have read the cfd discussion and see no suggestion by anyone that the NI subcat should be removed from the 'Ireland' parent. (I would interpret 'split out' as 'form a separate subcat'.) Oculi (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been informed that I should not be informing you of them, so I will stop. Though I will say that non-FFDs do not show up in the article alerts, and files are deleted in processes other than FFD (most of the notices posted on this page). If you wish the Article Alerts bot to function more efficiently with file deletions, you must categorize all files that you wish to be informed of FFDs on into a category tree that Article Alerts bot monitors (this hasn't been the case for most of the files so far posted) or must have the WikiProject banner attached (which isn't the case, since I have been informed that your project does not tag files, so this case does not activate Article Alerts bot, as there is no banner to monitor).
In future if you wish to track file deletions that are potentially related to your project, I direct your attention to the various file deletion processes, such as WP:FFD, WP:PUF, and various Speedy Deletion hidden categories that are outlined under criteria F's.
A Wikimeet is proposed for Northern Ireland in the next few months. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Most take place on a Sunday afternoon in a suitable pub but other days and locations can also work. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Northern Ireland topics. Please add your suggestions for place and date to the discussion page here: Proposed Northern Ireland Wiki Meetup. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The Ireland-related rugby league articles are a bit of a mess. They all seem to have similar content, albeit often out of date, not current and conflicting. The articles include:
Merger isnt the wy forward, re-writing alot is. Will get to work when I can, anybody else is very free to jump in. Will alter the lead on the last straight away- its wrong. Murry1975 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
By mistake I have overwritten your coords, but it is indeed the racetrack. On the buildings on the roadside is a sign "Welcome to Roscommon Races" {[smiley}} The Bannertalk14:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring at counties of Ireland
User:Tupolevjet has been reverting the consensus edits at various Counties of Ireland. This modern v. traditional issued was debated at length a while back, and a consensus was reached on the current intro. This user refuses to accept this, and is re-hashing the tired old "admin county or not a real county because it wasn't laid down by the Normans centuries ago" issue. Snappy (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
W. D. Hogan, professional photographer at 56 Henry St, Dublin
The Abbey Theatre article has been up for featured article review here for almost two months but no one has made any attempt to fix the problems, which are mainly missing citations, so it is likely to be demoted. The project has been losing some of the featured Irish articles in the last few years and not getting any replacements. Has anyone got the knowledge or inclination to try and save this one? ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the addition of Dan (ancient city) to this article on an Irish county, and I was in turn reverted "Because even without any citations whatsoever, modern genetic andthe sheer volume of exact correlations speaks entirely in its own rite". Lots of Irish related edits by this new editor. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Diocese of Galway and Kilmacduagh. Diocese of Kilfenora
Hullo friends,
An editor has suggested that since it has not been possible to reach agreement at a point in dispute that we should request your learned input. See here. The question is: "how many dioceses are there - 1 or 2?" The answer to this question will determine the name for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Galway, Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora.
I contend that there are two dioceses; the Diocese of Galway and Kilmacduagh and the still extant Diocese of Kilfenora. The history is a bit muddled as there were originally 3 dioceses that merged and de-merged and merged again over the centuries. In support of the contention, the page Bishop of Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora says: "Following the resignation of Bishop Patrick Fallon in 1866, John McEvilly, Bishop of Galway (later Archbishop of Tuam), was appointed Apostolic Administrator of both the dioceses of Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora. In 1883, the see of Kilmacduagh was united with Galway, and the bishops of the united see were also made permanently apostolic administrators of Kilfenora." So starting from a single diocese, Galway, you have administrators for the 2 other dioceses. Next Galway merges with Kilmacduagh. The administration of Kilfenora continues. There is no suggestion that a further merger with Kilfenora takes places. Kilfenora, therefore, is extant as a diocese, albeit that it shares an ordinary in the person of the Bishop of Galway and Kilmacduagh. The primary source is also muddled on the question, offering 3 different names. The secondary source seems clearer, and possibly more authoritative, on the question. The catholic hierarchy calls it the "Diocese of Galway and Kilmacduagh" and has a separate listing for the "Diocese of Kilfenora". Technically, the Pope is the Bishop Of Kilfenora and the Bishop of Galway and Kilmacduagh only administrates it on his behalf. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Laurel Lodged, as we discussed here. I contend that the primary source, Galwaydiocese.ie, calls the Episcopal see "Diocese of Galway, Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora", and since the primary source has decided to name it that, then Wikipedia should go by that title. The ordinary's title is anomaly in which he is titled "Bishop of Galway and Kilmacduagh and Apostolic Administrator of Kilfenora". Laurel Lodged may be right that there being two dioceses, in which case the article's title should be "Roman Catholic Dioceses of Galway, Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora", but as said earlier the primary source has choose the singular "Diocese". Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If a page existed called Diocese of Kilfenora, then it would be improper of Galway and Kilmacduagh to appropriate its name. I might create such a page later. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The Diocese of Kilfenora was merged with the Diocese of Kilmacduagh by the decree of Pope Benedict XIV in September 1750, and that the bishop of the united dioceses was to be altenatively bishop of one diocese and apostolic administrator of the other, since the two dioceses were in different provinces. (A New History of Ireland, volume 9, p. 362, fn. 48 and Handbook of British Chronology, p. 433, fn. 2). On 5 June 1883, the Diocese of Kilmacduagh was united to the Diocese of Galway (which are in the Province of Tuam), and from that date the Diocese of Kilfenora (which is in the Province of Cashel) was administered by the bishop of Galway. (A New History of Ireland, vol. 9, p. 390 and Handbook of British Chronology, p. 430, fn. 2). So the three form a single Episcopal see with the ordinary titled Bishop of Galway and Kilmacduagh and Apostolic Administrator of Kilfenora. The official website calls the Episcopal see the Diocese of Galway, Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora, and so Wikipedia should follow the official website's choice with that title. Scrivener-uki (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
It is not correct to that there is a single episcopal see. There is only a single ordinary who exercises his ordinary power over two sees. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The three are held together in an unusual arrangement under the authority of a single ordinary. The official primary source is not muddled on the question of its name, and does not offer 3 different names. The official primary source clearly states on its home page that it is the "Diocese of Galway, Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora". It is suggested by Laurel Lodged that a secondary source, catholic hierarchy, seems clearer, and possibly more authoritative, on the question. But catholic hierarchy is a user-generated website by one person with no editorial oversight, and so should not take precedence over an official primary source. We can argue all we like, the fact is that the official primary source has chose that name and so Wikipedia should follow their choice. Scrivener-uki (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
"1st century Irish people" and other spurious categories
We have a category page for Irish people by century, which includes 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century Irish people subcategories, and each of them have monarch subcategories. These are obviously spurious, as all the people in them are either entirely legendary, or at best undateable. All medieval and early modern attempts to put dates to pre-Christian Ireland are artificial and retrospective, differ significantly, and have been distorted by political propaganda. As far as I know the only Irish person whose existence can be dated prior to the 5th century is the petty king who was a guest of Agricola, and his name is not recorded. While the various dates given to kings in the various sources should be in their articles as that's valuable information about the traditions about them, I think all these categories prior to the 5th century should be deleted. Any thoughts? Nicknack009 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Just looking at the 1st-century monarchs, all of them are dated by three separate sources – Lebor Gabála Érenn, Foras Feasa ar Érinn and the Annals of the Four Masters – to the first century AD. Legendary they may be, but if they're notable enough to have an article, they should have useful categories. "Pre-5th century Irish people" or "First millennium Irish people" would not be useful categories. The current ones are. Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
"Pre-5th century Irish people" or "First millennium Irish people" would be equally spurious because they are not historical figures. They are equivalent to Achilles or Robin Hood, whose stories are set in a particular time in history but are not themselves historical. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Where is your proof that they are not historical figures,both the Scythian and Basque influx are backed up by modern Genetics, and any claims that these colonizations were some kind of migration and not preceded by military operations is not at all plausible taking into account the social and political environment of Ireland at the time,lets just accept that its is more probable than in probable that Lebor Gabála Érenn is accurate in its Recordings of the two ethnic influxes immediately preceding the Celts,and lets just accept that there is about 1500 Dolmens scattered throughout Ireland over the last 7000 years in which the skeletal Remains of Madmen,some hitting 7 foot tall buried with Crowns,gold and weaponary and bearing pre death healed skeletal wounds showing signs of almost perpetual Battle from an early age,is evidence that it is more probable than in probable that their existed Kings right throughout the history of Ireland--Prestigiouzman (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Prestigiouzman, your peculiar obsession with race and genetics is irrelevant to this discussion, and your lack of understanding of the methods of history become more obvious with everything you write. Go away and leave the grown-ups to talk. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, this grown-up is not going to continue the discussion after that infantile outburst! Your own lack of understanding is shown in your failure to realise that time-related categories are related to time only, and do not depend on authenticity, historical accuracy or individual editors' perceptions of those. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
One, take a look at Prestigiouzman's editing record. Two, time only applies to people who existed. Again, you would not categorise Robin Hood as a 12th century English person. The scholarly consensus of over a century (not my individual perception) is that none of this material is historical, and Wikipedia is based on scholarly consensus, is it not? --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Then either delete the articles or remove them from the category, or create a new category of "Mythical Irish people" or something like that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Why would I want to delete the articles? I was involved in writing quite a few of them, because I'm interested in Irish legends. They're already categorised according to which area of Irish myth/legend they appear in. I simply think we should draw a clear line between people who are reliably historical and those who are not, and if I removed all those who are not from the catagories I have nominated those categories would not only be empty, they'd be unfillable, because, as all reputable sources agree, Irish history begins in the 5th century. Hence the nomination for deletion. The consensus seems to be pretty unanimous against me, so I don't know what more I can say. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
If the articles remain, I'd thus try to clean out any which don't fit; if the resultant category is empty, nominate it for deletion at CFD, with the argument that we are unlikely to have bios of true historical figures to populate them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I could do that, but if I did it unilaterally without consensus that they didn't belong, they'd just get put back in. No, I think I've lost this argument (although I still think I'm right ;). --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Id say even the Orangutan from planet of the Apes would figure this one out, you know the one im talking about yea, the one who bounces out of the cave with d eyes dancin out of his head jacked up on the gear--Prestigiouzman (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I am making some changes to the article, including the infobox. It says that the colours of the school are Blue and Black. Can anybody find out what tone of blue and the Hex number? Miss Bono [hello, hello!]15:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I have the nasty feeling that one user together with an (his?) IP is falsifying the articles Waterford and Limerick. The registered editor makes Limerick the biggest and oldest city in the country. Could someone keep an eye on this? The Bannertalk21:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It's generally considered good practice to engage (or try to engage) the editor(s) on the article talk pages before posting "vandalism" notices on their user talk pages and coming to WP:IE to rally the troops. Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I accused him (and still do) accuse him of falsifying the articles by adding incorrect facts. It is the template that uses the term vandalism. And I only "rallied the troops" when I realised that I was dealing with a somewhat problematic user. As you can see on my talk page, the discussion with him is in fact meaningless because he just does not have his facts straight. And I wanted to disengage due to the risk of an edit war. The Bannertalk14:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I think both issues should be taken up separately at the Talk:Limerick page. The history issue is admittedly complicated with continuity and verifiability issues, but the population figure problem (57,104 for the area administered by the council vs. 91,456 for the city including suburbs) is easily (already) solved by giving both statistics; both are actually already cited in the article by the CSO source in the infobox and the same figures are given by other CSO sources, such as this. (In an aside, I think it would fall within legitimate usage of the source to say third most populous urban area in the state based on that source). Both figures are correct, and I would have to say, necessary in the article. It's handled much the same way in the demographics section of the Dublin article. In the real world, the extent of the city has been a bit of a bone of contention between the City (and before that, Limerick Corporation) and the County Council for a long time; barring Dublin, the proportion of people who live in the suburbs outside the City Council area is much higher than the other cities. For real-world people looking for population sizes, not including the suburbs figure would be most unhelpful. (And in a piece of unashamed crystal-ballery, if and when the merger of city and county goes through, I would be surprised and astonished if the city limits were not radically overhauled.) However, for present purposes, both the history and population figures should be brought up on the talk page, and keeping then separate would help avoid problems. FlowerpotmaN·(t)23:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that Sintend does not make a difference between the Limerick Urban Area and Limerick City, more or less confiscating the suburbs in County Clare (administered by Clare County Council) into "Limerick City". The Bannertalk14:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the late replies. (Got laid low by some sort of temporary lurgy for a day there) Anyway, I'll try a quick response (in my terms :)) for both. Honestly, I am not minimizing the problems that Sinetend's edits were causing, but looking at them, it really does look like a newbie having problems with the system and than a deliberate attempt to add incorrect information. The edit that struck me is the "Antiquity's map-maker, Ptolemy, produced in 150 the earliest map of Ireland, showing a place called "Regia" at the same site as King's Island" addition: actually I could have found sources to support parts of that statement, barring the King's Island specificity; the whole "Regia is Limerick and Ptolemy said so" idea appears in histories of the city, especially 19th Century works and has survived to this day. (Just spotted it on a corporate website for a major port facility, if you want to Google.) Now obviously I wouldn't have; I'm not an expert in cartography (or much else) but I know the problems with Ptolemaic maps, not least of which is the problem of none of them are actually his but attempts to generate maps from the co-ordinates given in the Geographia with varying methodologies, some of which did place Regia in a place that looks a bit like the site of Limerick. (According to the one book that I have to hand that deals with the subject, more modern attempts put Regia in the North Midlands/Roscommon area, if you were wondering.) Anyway, the point I am trying to get to is that while modern scholarship wouldn't go along with the "Regia is Limerick" concept, it was at one time an accepted idea which still appears in the present day and it wouldn;t be deliberate misinformation to add it. It would be wrong, but not calculated deliberate misinformation. Much the same could be said of his other history edits. The reason I thought that bringing it up as an issue on the "Limerick" talk page would be engage with the editor on those grounds; the historicity of Saint Munchin is another valid question, Why not the Waterford page? Actually I'll admit I was looking more at the Limerick edits for obvious being-from-the-place reasons, but in my opinion, they seem to be a by-product of his version of Limerick history, working on the logic that if Limerick was supposed to have been in existence in Ptolemy's time then Waterford can't be the oldest city. Engaging with the editor regarding their beliefs of history of Limerick would have probably solved the Waterford problem. (If I had seen the edits at the time, I might have tried to discuss the issues on his talk page.)
As for the population numbers, I do have sympathy for his trying to use the urban area figure instead of the borough area even if he went about it in the wrong way. The urban area population figure really is a more relevant number, the headline figure if you will, in much the same way as the 525,383 figure for Dublin *isn't* the figure used when people report the population of Dublin. Does the urban area figure annex portions of the county and parts of Clare like Shannon Banks? Darn right it does; it's supposed to. It should, for sound, necessary planning and infrastructural reasons. However there really isn't a major problem here that could;t be solved with minor tweaks of the demographic section. FlowerpotmaN·(t)23:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
"Fórsaí Cosanta"
An RfC is open whether "Fórsaí Cosanta" should be included as an alternative Irish name for the Defence Forces. Personally, I have misgivings about the title of the RfC (which presupposed that "Fórsaí Cosanta" is a name of the Defence Forces). Nevertheless, views are invited on Talk:Defence Forces (Ireland). --Tóraí (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reservations about you hawking around your accusations of bias, but nevertheless I encourage users to express their views at the RfC, which is about whether "Fórsaí Cosanta" should be included in brackets in the first sentence of the article, not whether it should be included "as an alternative Irish name". Scolaire (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what it is you want us to check. Is it whether the English exonyms (Kingstown, Queen's County etc.) are still in use, or have been in use up to fairly recently? If that is the question then the answer is no, apart from Bagenalstown and Charleville. Or you asking whether it is appropriate to talk of "English exonyms" in Ireland at all? If that is the question then the answer is no, because the definition given at the top of the article is "a place name given by an English-speaking linguistic community to a topographic feature situated in a territory where English has no official status", whereas in Ireland has official status: it is recognised in the constiution as the second official language. Hope that helps. Scolaire (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that definition is a UN Work Group definition, probably not applicable to Ireland. To be honest I would expect that short sample of major names there is okay, and since it is only an umbrella article leading to main Place names in Ireland there isn't any further expansion/correction needed. Unless someone wishes to write a couple of sentences noting why the concept of "English exonym" might be different from say France. But I'm not proposing anything, if the section is fine, then that's all good. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I started this article a while back from a stub, but haven't really gotten back to it. Does anyone want to take a crack? It's in need of some expert assistance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion TBH. For a start, the title implies that it's about contemporary clothing rather than traditional dress (and I'm fairly sure the 21st-century Irish wear the same clothing as most of the western world). It's in essay style, it is largely unsourced, there are no inline citations and the one external link (Shamrock Gifts) would not be high on a list of reliable sources. Even the single footnote contains a factual inaccuracy: Poynings' Law was passed in the reign of Henry VII, not Henry VIII. So it's open to question whether any of the article is accurate. Scolaire (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Renaming the article "Medieval Gaelic clothing" would help address the title issue, though as Scolaire says, you will need proper sources and a less essay style style of writing. Mabuska(talk)11:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The article will no doubtly lie like many in this WikiProject (and other WikiProjects) a stub/start class article with little care or attention given to it. Mabuska(talk)14:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course, that's true, but since we already have a start at the article, why not fix it? I just don't happen to know much about Irish clothing... Can anyone help?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again Jethro...... re your concern about the Celtic Cross .... the shaft of a 10th Century Celtic Cross still remains in situ on the site as can be seen here http://www.irishmegaliths.org.uk/zKilmainham.htmin Bully's acre which is on the ridge where Maighneann built his church. Many thanks or taking time over this.
A photo of the unveiling of the painting in the Library can be seen here http://kilmainhamtales.ie/ on the Kilmainham Tales Site which is owned by Kilmainham Gaol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msriposte (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msriposte (talk • contribs)
Hi. I've been updating this today, and wondered if episode 6 had actually aired yet. I couldn't find anything to indicate it had, so wondered if anyone can help. Thanks in advance, Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I guess it hasn't aired yet. I found a reference from IFTN that mentions it was in filming and due to air in the autumn, but the trail goes cold after that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
David McWilliams
This article is rated Start-class on WikiProject:Biography, Start-class, Mid-importance on WikiProject:Ireland and unrated on WikiProjects Journalism and Economics. However this article is in need of a serious overhaul - I have listed some issues at Talk:David_McWilliams#Questionable_references, but there may be more issues that need fixing before it can reach higher ratings.Autarch (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I've rerated it as C-class and inherited that rating to the other project, however, I don't give any importance rating for project that I am not involved in but leave that to assessment editors of those projects. I agree with an overhaul and comment as follows: the inline hotlinking to external URLs is not good and they should all be replaced with reliable sources. Also, someone needs to refine the bare URL citations into template form with all appropriate details, which is most easily done by using the Reflinks tool. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at Category:People stubs I found Roger O'Shaughnessy and Roger O'Shaughnessey adjacent, and looking at their articles I'm almost certain they're one man: death dates a year apart, wives of nearly the same name and parentage; forfeited estates on death. I don't know anything about Irish history, but have proposed a merge and am dropping this note on the talk pages of two editors who seem to be Irish specialists and have edited both pages in the past, and also here at the Irish Wikiproject. Over to you. PamD15:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I actually raised an issue with the whole bunch of O'Shaughnessey articles with the creating editor. Most can be merged into a single article, which I suppose I can get around too at some stage. Mabuska(talk)22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're referring to Fergananim, who created Roger O'Shaughnessey (obviously a mis-spelling) in April 2010, rather than Nora lives, who created Roger O'Shaughnessy in October 2009. I've crossed paths with Ferg myself in the past. He does tend to be a bit like a bull in a china shop. I notice he edited Nora's article both before and after he created his own, and that she edited his. Weird! Can you say anything about the content of the article(s) – the year of death, the assertion that he was not wounded at the Boyne, the forfeiture of his property? Scolaire (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the topic but I'm happy to research it and investigate any issues. Just so we're clear, what precisely do you think is the matter with the article? --Tóraí (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Just added three WikiProjects to this - I know only the first applies to this project, but it hasn't been rated. Autarch (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Really? I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I noticed it's cited and red-linked in enough articles to be curious about. If there's an article that people think already covers it as a historical document, I could link those pages to it. I didn't want to bother making a small article for it had been deleted already. But if there's nothing about it already, it might be nice to start a small something, because those articles only describe it in a vague way. __ E L A Q U E A T E18:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've never heard of it either, but I recognise a few of the English officials mentioned in it such as Carew and Perrot from their roles in mapping Ulster and dividing it into baronies during Elizabeth's reign. It definitely is notable considering its account of the social order and leading clans of the area at the time and how it affected Connacht afterwards and deserves an article if someone is willing to create one for it. Mabuska(talk)01:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Irish Eyes
More Irish eyes on Iona Institute and related articles would be welcome considering the ongoing controversy. Some people seem to be denying there even is any controversy in Ireland at the moment, calling all that has occurred "just words"! IRWolfie- (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Well this is certainly something new to me, seeing as the only controversy I have seen in the news regarding Ireland the state and island is about the holy orders and children, most notable the Sisters of Nazareth (in regards to Northern Ireland). First I've heard of the Iona Institute. Mabuska(talk)01:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Do you watch any ROI news at all because it has featured heavily on all southern channels and all newspapers: [13]? Considering that the patrons of the Iona Institute are mostly notable journalists known for their opinion pieces, considering its been on prime time and TV3's Vincent Browne, etc, if you follow events in the Republic, it would be surprising to have never heard of them. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
No, no, and nope. Then again who said I follow events in the republic per se? I follow events in Northern Ireland and in regards to the republic, only when the news/media deems something from there notable enough for mention here which as far as I am aware it has not. Having said that, the name "Iona Institute" is now starting to ring a few bells, but I do suffer a shockingly poor short-term memory so I may have seen a mention of it somewhere (maybe the Irish News the other day), sometime, but it definitely didn't make an impact here? Mabuska(talk)21:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC).
Can anyone give me a good translation of this racehorse's name. Online translations give "Hooray Freedom", but as a non-Irish speaker I would like to check. Tigerboy1966 18:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It could be translated as Hooray for Freedom. Abú is usually translated as forever, so "Freedom Forever!" would be a better translation. Abú can also used as 'up' as in Corcaigh Abú meaning Up Cork! Snappy (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I remember now that there was a youtube video called "Tyrone Abu" when that county won the Gaelic football championship a few years ago. Tigerboy1966 22:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Another translation that I've heard is that "Abu" means victory, so it would mean in this context "Freedom victory" or rather "victory for freedom". Take for example the motto used by the Red Hand Commandoes, which was "Lamh Dearg Abu" meaning "Red Hand (to) Victory". Mabuska(talk)23:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ireland experts. Here's an abandoned Afc submission that wouldn't be hard to make into a stub article. Is this a notable building? Are the references reliable? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Is it notable? Not sure. Are the references reliable? Well, the ones in this version were reliable but not very helpful. But I've spent a couple of hours digging up some refs and re-writing it, so I hope it gets created. Scolaire (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about this topic? It has been tagged for references for 4 years but nothing has been added. ww2censor (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated Paul Kane 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.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've created List of civil parishes of Ireland with the intent on cleaning up articles and making them consistent and starting the missing articles. I gather that in some counties, if not all, civil parishes are old fashioned and no longer really have any legitimacy even if they still exist formally. The Banner insists that hamlets or villages should NOT mention civil or religious parishes and that separate articles should be created. If this is the case, why do most of our articles on Irish towns and village say it is a civil parish as if it's still a legitimate rigid admin division like a municipality and the articles are organized with a places infoboxes and linked as a village? I personally see nothing wrong say xxx is a hamlet/village and historical civil parish in County Clare, Ireland. I think it's redundant to have separate articles and the history will inevitably be closed tied to the main settlement. All I want is some clarification on the issue and some idea of how I should proceed as I've been making an effort to clean up articles like Lahinch and create ones like Kilmoon and want to try to install some order and consistency in Irish place articles. A lot of them badly need sourcing and cleanup but if Banner is going to call everything I do creating a mess then I'm not prepared to work on them. What I want is to be able to proceed and for towns, villages and hamlets to be able to say in each articles xx is a village and historical civil parish and to solidly have them all in the same article with sources and everything organized nicely by nav boxes and consistent content and sourcing like Kilmoon. Most of them badly need cleanup and putting into some sort of order and I'm trying to help.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking generally. I want to be able to proceed in the knowledge that eveyrbody's happy with what I'm doing. I'm trying to clean up a mess and create some order and consistency not cause a landslide!♦ Dr. Blofeld07:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
When you create an article like Kilmoon where you mixed up a Protestant, a Roman catholic and a Civil parish I don't think you are cleaning up mess but are creating it. Civil parishes are not active. Civil parishes are not historical (inactive but never abolished). Civil parishes are not identical to Roman Catholic parishes. Civil parishes do have a relationship with the former Protestant parishes in relation to territory. Roman Catholic parishes and their offices are not part of the Civil Registration Service, although the church records are official records.
I think that a separate article for civil parishes is completely unnecessary. A brief mention in the relevant RC parish or village article should be sufficient. Finnegas (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
When a village is in a civil parish with the same name, one article will be most convenient to our readers. The text can distinguish between the parish and the village as needed. Religious parishes that cover several civil parishes could perhaps have separate articles. The guiding principle should be pragmatism. If one can cover the village, civil parish and religious parish(s), all with the same name, only one article is needed. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Pragmatism Aymatth2 is correct - it's about pragmatism. In most cases no disambiguation is needed as the same names conveniently covers all 3 entities (civil p, RC p, village), for example Lorrha. In other cases, 2 or more articles will be needed. The extreme example here is the civil p of Glenkeen which is unusual in that it is co-extensive with the RC p and village but those entities have two different name - Borrisoleigh and Ileigh (for the RC p) and Borrisoleigh (for the village). In other cases, the RC p is much bigger than the original civil p and so again at least 2 articles are necessary. For example Templemore covers the town and the civil p, however the RC p covers 3 civil parishes - Templemore, Clonmore and Killea. But these are extreme examples. Kilmurry Ibrickane probably does not deserve 2 articles: good editing could easily accommodate all 3 usages. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Civil parishes have not been administrative units in Ireland since the 17th century, but continue to be used by church and state as geographical definitions. They are notable. A civil parish could be associated with an abbey, castle, church, vicarage or village. One article could cover all of these, or there could be different articles for each. There is no hard and fast rule except that a reader should be able to find what they are looking for as easily as possible. If a parish is 2km square with a village in the middle by the same name, there will normally by no reason for two articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
See the section below reBallymarkahan Castle. Clare County Library says that the castle is in Quin parish (click on any of the thumbnails here). The Quin village article has this new formula, "There is also a non-active civil parish of the same name", but is that useful when the county library still uses the parish as the location of something? It's like the argument that went on for nigh-on two years about whether eight of the 32 counties were "traditional" counties, and whether the remaining 24 were "traditional" counties, "administrative" counties or both (all 32 are now just called counties). Excessive burocracy does not improve an article, it only makes it confusing. I think that sentence should be re-worded to make it more informative, or removed. BTW I think Quin parish is probably associated with Quin Abbey rather than the village. Scolaire (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The abbey is relatively recent. The Clare County Library Historical Background says "Quin is first mentioned as a village in the days of the Norman Castle which preceded the Abbey." Obviously the village long outlasted the abbey. I tend to think of abbeys as inward-looking, detached from their surroundings, deserving their own article. I don`t think the village and abbey fit comfortably together in one article. My opinion.
The Parliamentary Gazeteer of Ireland 1845 defines Quin as a "parish, containing a village of the same name." The Gazeteer describes first the parish and then the village in one article. County Clare: A History and Topography 1837 similarly defines Quin as a "parish ... containing 2918 inhabitants, of which number 173 are in the village." It also covers parish and village in one article, but alternates between them.
The 1842 map shows about 30 houses in the village, plus a church, an R.C. Chapel and a police barracks. The parish is much larger in population as well as area (5x3 miles), but mostly the village is where the action happened. I would be inclined to keep the abbey in a separate article and cover the parish and village in one article, since there is so much overlap in the history and geography. That is just my preference. "Whatever works..." is a good rule.
"There is also a non-active civil parish of the same name" is confusing. As far as I know, civil parishes never were "active". They are geographical areas that correspond to pre-reformation church parishes, and that are still used as a way of defining where a place is. Better to say "it is surrounded by a civil parish of the same name", and to add a section describing the civil parish. I may do that. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Both Scolaire and Aymatth2 are correct. A simple formula should be adopted for those articles that do not merit separate articles for the civil parish / RC parish / village. It should say something like "Foo is a village and civil parish in County Foo, Ireland. It is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo.". Laurel Lodged (talk)
I am entirely comfortable with that. I would not rule out separate articles, which may sometimes make sense, but where there is one article the formula works for me. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
@The Banner: There you have it. Consensus here dictates that villages and civil parishes should be in the same article and that as Laurel says clever editing means that in some cases it is possible to mention all in the same article.
Unfortunately Banner you're continuing to operate against consensus and attempted to revert the good work Aymatth did here [14][15][16] . None of you support this approach and outlook then? Thanks for clarifying but I have a strong feeling this won't be the end of it. I'd appreciate any support and constructive assistance in progressing with improving coverage and quality of settlements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The only thing is that you can have 4 different entities with the same name: a village, a Church of Ireland parish, a civil parish and a Roman-Catholic parish. They are not identical. The Bannertalk13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
To give the man the benefit of the doubt, he may not have checked this page before reverting Aymatth's edits (on the other hand he made no attempt to discuss the edits on any of the article talk pages, which is poor form). Now that he has your notification, hopefully he will take note of the consensus here. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's a stupid question: What about townlands? The Clare Library for example puts it like this: "The town of Ballyvaughan is situated in the townlands of Ballyvaghan and Knocknagroagh in the Civil Parish of Drumcreehy." Should something like this be standard in WP entries on Irish villages?Drow69 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There is obviously nothing wrong with giving that information. I would not say it has to be given. I suspect it may be hard to find with the larger towns. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
If a civil parish has enough information for its own article even as a stub then it could rightly have its own article as a distinct geographical unit. If there is nothing really on it and it shares the same name as a settlement in the civil parish, then just make mention of the parish in the lede. For example we have the article Desertmartin which is also the name of a civil parish, yet I created an article for it Desertmartin (parish) which is quite more than a stub. Magherafelt is a town and a civil parish yet the civil parish doesn't have an article just a mention in the lede. Common sense should apply. Mabuska(talk)22:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I have the feeling that for long periods the parish was the main unit, not the village. Cottages were scattered, each with their own plot of land. Tinkers and peddlers would come by, there would be a fair every few months and the town was only a couple of hours walk away. But most parishes did not have a central village with shops, smithy, pubs and offices. The focus was the church or chapel, not the village. Many parishes that were once densely populated, now deserted, never had a village at their center. In rural areas the parish may be the natural unit for describing local geography and history. But obviously common sense should apply. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@Aymatth2:@Dr. Blofeld:Sorry for my late reply, but my modem died. During that time I went back to the basics and the library. What I found was:
Church of Ireland parishes were originally equal to the pre-Cromwell as they more or less were hijacked during the reformation (Source: County Clare A History and Topography by Samuel Lewis; in the CLASP re-edition it is specifically stated that Lewis was describing Church of Ireland parishes)
Civil parishes were based on the early Christian and medieval monastic and church settlements. In effect, due to the hijacking by the CofI, they are more or less equal to Church of Ireland parishes, although in later times they were adjusted to better cope with population growth. (Source 1: Peter Beirne, Clare Local History Centre. Source 2: A new genealogical atlas of Ireland - Brian Mitchell. p.6)
Roman-Catholic parishes are from a much later date. Sometimes they have retained the pre-Cromwell parish boundaries, especially in the more "Gaelic" regions like West-Clare. In the Anglo-Norman areas the RC parishes were far smaller and prone to amalgamation. For instance, the original RC parishes Drumline, Clonloghan, Kilconry, Kilmaleary, Kilnasoolagh, Bunratty and (possibly) Tomfinlough have all been amalgamated in the modern parish of Newmarket-on-Fergus. (Source: The Other Clare, vol. 23, 1999. p. 36)
The original map of County Clare civil parishes, copied by Clare County Library from the book of Brian Mitchell is incorrect. After writing out all parishes by barony, I had 81 parishes, where Mitchell only listed 78 (there are three different parishes with the name Kilmurry and two with the name Clooney).
Civil parishes were abandoned (but not abolished) in 1898 with the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, when they were replaced as administrative units by the Poor Law Union.
Conclusions: the civil parish is more or less equal to the (original) Church of Ireland parishes in territory. The civil parish has no relation at all with the present Roman-Catholic parishes.
I think the above description by The Banner is essentially correct. Civil parishes are based on the old church parishes, and have some history. After the upheavals of the 17th century the Catholic church, with fewer priests, set up larger parishes. RC parishes today usually cover several of the old parishes. The Church of Ireland kept the old parishes, but one vicar would serve several of them. The civil parishes never had much administrative function outside the poor law. They were, and to some extent still are, convenient definitions of fairly small geographical areas. They are still sometimes mentioned in laws and legal documents. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
That is not completely correct. The old "gaelic"-style were always quite big and seldom amalgamated (examples: Kilfarboy and Kilmurry Ibrickane in West-Clare). The "anglo-norman"-style were far smaller due to the standard combination of manor/towerhouse, church, mill and forge. With the RC church essentially decoupled from the local landlord (the native RC Anglo-Norman landlords were replaced by often absent protestant English/English wannabee landlords) there was no need for this fine network so in those areas amalgamations took place. The Bannertalk16:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If you go way back, the population was small, priests were few and parishes large. They got more compact as the population grew. One priest could only serve so many people. The old parishes generally had a church as the focal point, within easy walking distance of any part of the parish, but many of these were torn down in the 17th century. See Our Parish History for an essay about an RC parish in Clare. The post-17th-century expansion of this RC parish was due to a shortage of priests rather than a shortage of native landlords. I imagine the history was different in other parts of the country. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
None of this research is new, at least not to me. Does it serve a point? Does it advance the Banner's argument by an iota? Laurel Lodged (talk)
Interesting to hear that from you. I still remember that it was you who tried it the first time to change the article Kilmurry-Ibrickane from an article about a Roman-Catholic parish into a civil parish because I made a mistake with the category... The Bannertalk02:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The Banner has rightly pointed out that Catholic parishes, civil parishes and villages are different things, even when they have the same name. Sometimes, as with Kilmurry Ibrickane, the RC parish and civil parish have the same boundaries and could reasonably be covered in one article. Sometimes, as with Bunratty, the distinction between the civil parish and the village is unclear. The consensus is to use common sense in deciding whether to cover them in one or more articles. But I see no hurry to cut off this discussion, which may still bring greater clarity. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
To my opinion, the civil parish deserves a separate article. Merging the different types of parishes into one article is a recipe for trouble. The Bannertalk02:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
When the civil parish and the Catholic parish have the same name and extent, the same geography and economy, and share most of their history, making separate articles does nothing for our readers. It seems a lot like a Content Fork, which is a recipe for trouble. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The geography of a civil parish and a RC parish could be the same (but that is not always the case). The history of a civil parish and a RC parish is always different as the RC parish was illegal for most of the time the civil parish was active. Best method in my opinion is to name the parishes in the article about the main place in the village and only create the articles with relevant info. Take Inagh as an example: you can wikilink to the RC parish Inagh-Kilnamona and mention the civil parish and Church of Ireland parish of the same name without creating the articles. But Inagh and Kilnamona were separate civil parishes...
In other cases, like Kilfarboy, you have to create them all: civil, RC and CofI (CofI had a church in Milltown Malbay, the church is gone but the graveyard is still there). Pragmatism is what we need: create the useful parishes, mention the not-useful parishes. There are too many exception to create a general line. The Bannertalk13:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It is clear that there is a consensus on this question. It is also clear that the Banner disagrees with that consensus. It's time to wrap this up. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no consensus for your "solution" to throw everything in the same bucket. If you read the discussion properly, you see more people who say (more or less) they are not the same, but create only the relevant articles. The Bannertalk21:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(A) The consensus is "Don't create articles heedlessly that contain little new info and only replicate large sections of other articles. Incorporate all the relevant info of al the similar entities into a single master article. Where there is sufficient info/ sources and the entities are notable in their own right, then create separate articles.". (B) Banner's contrary view is "Create article for every last thing. Don't mind the overlap.". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No, Laurel Lodged, my opinion is: don't tell lies in articles. Don't call a place a civil parish, as it is not the same. Don't call an RC-parish a civil parish, as it is not the same. Just mention that there are parishes with the same name. The Bannertalk13:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Refusal to accept consensus
See this diff on Doora. The effect is that the lead section does not summarize the body, which is more about the civil parish than the village. See Templemaley - "inactive civil parish". When were they ever "active"?. Any views on the right way to deal with this nuisance? It is a fairly trivial and arcane issue, but these actions seem insulting and disruptive to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, earlier in this discussion you wrote The Banner has rightly pointed out that Catholic parishes, civil parishes and villages are different things, even when they have the same name.. So why do you keep naming villages as civil parishes, contrary to your own opinion? The Bannertalk14:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Unacceptable. This is not what was agreed above. Stating is an "inactive civil parish" looks like original research.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that the Banner is very close to disciplinary proceedings for persistent POV editing that ignores a clear consensus . Perhaps a ban on parishes/villages/civil parishes editing might be in order. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sadly I think the refusal to accept the consensus—and we are a consensus-driven project at the end of the day—is pushing this issue towards some sort of penalty here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. How stupid of us to forget that this is your encyclopaedia Banner and that what you says goes. I think you really need to be careful and accept the consensus given rather than play by your own rules. Cassiantotalk20:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
No, Cassianto, you guys play your game well but it is not my encyclopaedia. In contrast, it are mr. Blofeld and Aymatth2 who claim to be the owners of Wikipedia and want me to f**k off. I really don't care how loud they cry and how often dr. Blofield leaves Wikipedia, I will continue to strive to a correct encyclopaedia so I will continue to correct the mistakes made by them. The Bannertalk21:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
...and I'm sure that Dr. B would be the first to admit it when he is wrong. However, on this occasion he really isn't. Cassiantotalk19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we are wasting valuable time on this debate. To quote from above: '(A) The consensus is "Don't create articles heedlessly that contain little new info and only replicate large sections of other articles. Incorporate all the relevant info of all the similar entities into a single master article. Where there is sufficient info/ sources and the entities are notable in their own right, then create separate articles.' I concur wholeheartedly. Personally, I have great sympathy for a completionist approach - e.g. it would just be much more satisfying to have a separate page for 90 out of 90 regional districts, even if only 77 of them are even remotely notable. However, IMO this whole issue would be better served by a list page that clarifies the relationships between the various local districts/villages/religious areas/townships rather than creating additional articles for obsolete/disused districts. For many rural areas, notability for even one article may be tough to show, much less for several articles. There is the obvious drawback that we will end up with an incomplete, unsatisfying and possibly confusing mishmash of village/parish/townland pages. But when you think about possible user interest, the most likely questions in this regard will probably be: What parish/townland is the village/town xy located in? Where the ?&§$ is the parish of yz? I guess these would best be answered by a well-researched list page, not dozens of individual articles. I can picture hardly any user bringing up WP and saying, e.g.: I want to know everything there is to know about the civil parish of Inishfree!Drow69 (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I think Aymatth has more than illustrated that it's worth having individual articles on them, which digs up notable history and people. It's important for Irish history above all. You'd have a point about an article on every townland though, but civil parishes are notable for inclusion on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
user:The Banner's participation in WP:AfD also raises some questions. Such as frivolous nomination, intentional ignorance of the AfD's guidelines and using AfD's discussion space for discussing editors, despite a clear notice that it is considered a disruptive behavior. Dmatteng (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you check Aymatth if Banner is right about saying the civil parish was abolished in 1898? He could be right, but he's going about this the wrong way. I'd rather not have to file anything against him, but if he refuses to talk to people and work with collaboratively there's no other choice.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
They still exist, They have not been used for census or taxation purposes since 1898, but are still used for some legal purposes. They may be of greater interest than a village within their boundary since they also hold lakes, ruins, parks etc. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting! Can you tell for what legal purposes they are used? I heard rumours about being used for liquor licenses but have not yet found evidence for that (and did not look too hard for this evidence). BTW: I found this edit on Killimer rather charming. The Bannertalk10:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Blofeld, I wrote that the civil parishes were replaced by poor law unions. Not that the civil parishes were abolished. The Bannertalk22:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Unions did not replace civil parishes. They were parallel sub-divisions of land. Nothing in the Poor Laws abolished them. In fact the parishes were used for the selection of guardians. See here:
" And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for the Board of Guardians of every Union, within One Month after the annual Election of Guardians, to appoint a fit Person in each Parish or Townland, or any Part thereof respectively, included in such Union, to be and be styled the Warden for such Parish, Townland, or Part thereof, and such Warden shall hold his Office for One Year, and may be re-appointed thereto, and shall provide for the Conveyance to the Workhouse of any such destitute poor Persons within such Parish, Townland, or Part thereof, as the Guardians shall direct, and shall perform such other Duties in relation to the Purposes of this Act as the Orders of the Commissioners shall prescribe; and shall, when required by the Guardians, attend the Meetings of their Board, and report to them from Time to Time the State of the Poor within such Parish, Townland, or Part thereof, and the Increase or Diminution of Mendicancy therein, and such other Particulars in relation to the Condition of such Parish, Townland, or Part thereof, as he may think fit, or as the Board of Guardians shall require."
Not by the 1838 Act that you quote, that is right. But they were abandoned (but not abolished) in 1898 with the "Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898" as main administrative unit. The Bannertalk10:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Civil parishes never had much in the way of administrative staff. Up to 1898 taxation and population statistics were recorded by parish. They were administrative units in that sense. After that statistics were broken down to the finer District Electoral Division level. The liquor act is here. It uses parish as a unit of land that can be treated as the local area around a club. Saying a parish is "inactive" or "abandoned" is meaningless. It is a unit of land, still in use.
The consensus is that one article can cover a village, civil parish and church parish if they have the same name. The lead should say something like "Foo is a village and civil parish in County Foo, Ireland. It is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo." Banner has been deliberately changing articles to remove that formula, ignoring the consensus and wasting everyone's time. This is disruptive. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Banner's been blocked for a week for disruption. I'd say Aymatth/Laura feel free to edit the Doora article. The thing is can see Banner's point about civil parishes being a redundant organization today but what concerns me is that he ignores reliable sources which prove there is a civil parish of the same name based on what he thinks is right. I have no problem with writing in the article or a footnote on civil parish saying although not formally abolished they're rarely used today, but what bothers me is that he's trying to hide any mention of them which given the sources is wrong. As Laura says with clever editing you can mention all in the same articles and not introduce "errors" as Banner calls it. Doora is a civil parish, even if it is ignored today in every day life, or at least had significance historically which should be documented on wikipedia. I don't see any evidence that Poor Law Union fully overrode civil parish, and at present I'd say it is more problematic as it misleads editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: Yeah "Foo is a village and civil parish in County Foo, Ireland. It is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Foo." so long as you link civil parish to the article which explains it is not formally abolished but rarely used today would explain it without justification in the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I must also hit out against the Banners historical innaccuracies and bias in his posts, most notably his incredibly ignorant "hijacked" comments. Mabuska(talk)13:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and exceptionally well done. Article is crystal clear and proves you can cover all in the same article without introducing "errors".♦ Dr. Blofeld14:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Doora looks good, though a bit more of an expanded lede is desirable other than just geo-political and geo-religious locations. Mabuska(talk)10:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Guys, if there is not currently a dispute, I don't think there's any need for a daily update on article edits. I presume that anybody interested in those articles has them on their watchlist anyway. Scolaire (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The Banner's time on gardening leave has not been spent fruitfully. He is back to his old ways of defying this clear consensus. I merged the contents of two Kilmurry Ibrickane (Civil parish) articles into a single article, as advised above, and send the other to AFD discussion. The Banner has reverted it and declared it to be an act of vandalism. What's to be done with him? Another temporary ban? More severe displinary action? You may wish to contribute here also. @Aymatth2:, @Scolaire:, @Dr. Blofeld:, @Mabuska:Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Laurel regardless of consensus, it is usually good form especially when something that is an issue causing trouble to raise it on the articles talk page first. In other words instead of just point-blank going ahead and merging, submit a merge-request and do it properly. Mabuska(talk)21:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
We agree that a village, civil and Catholic parish can all be covered by one article if there is not enough to justify separate articles. They are tiny rural areas. There is no consensus that they must all be covered in one article. This childish squabble is idiotic. Laurel Lodged seems to be against Catholic parishes and The Banner against civil parishes, which reflects badly on both editors. Since the dispute is very visible, moving or merging articles and swapping around the content should only be done after talk page discussion. I would say that Laurel Lodged also deserves some form of censure for doing just that. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, we agreed formally on here what the layout should be for parishes. I don't see why a new discussion for Kilmurry Ibrickane was needed to reestablish consensus, although I partly agree that it would have been "nicer" to discuss on the talk page. I don't think it would have been productive though with sniping from Banner and would pretty much duplicate what was already discussed here. Laurel was following what was agreed here and as far as I can see has no problems with discussing RC parishes in articles so I'm not sure why you think she is strongly against them.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit harsh Aymatth2. As Dr. Blofeld says, it would have been "nicer" to have taken it to the talk page. I acknowledged as much to Mabuska when I said "Point taken". However, I think that the Dr. is right - any discussion with The Banner would have been futile. Also, the changes were well flagged. I notified several above and nobody objected. In fact Scolaire complained that I didn't need to notify so much, a case of "Move on there folks, nothing to see here.". So you'll pardon me if I interpreted all that as an imprimatur to continue in the same vein. I agree that the squabble is childish, but only because one editor has behaved childishly and has been rightly punished for his behaviour. Had he been reasonable and adhered to consensus, none of these unseemly re-namings and reversions would have been necessary. Not to have reverted his edits would have been to submit to an aggressive bully. I would hope that that is not what Wiki is about. A bit harsh Aymatth2. I think that I deserved better than that. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Parish formatting consensus
As far as I can see from earlier discussion we are in full agreement except for Banner than it is feasible to cover both types of parishes and village in the same article with clever editing, although if there is a wealth of info available then it is possible to have a separate article on RC parish. However, I think how to format it warrants further discussion. Laurel I notice your edits on Kilfarboyhere. It seems a bit strange to me to sub section history under civil parish. In the broader sense I think Aymatth's layout with Location and History as main sections are more in line with general guidelines on here. However, I noticed a few comments at ANI from editors who said Aymatth's layout was confusing them. Can we come to an agreement on the best way to format the articles? ♦ Dr. Blofeld13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The article about Kilfarboy describes a small region on the coast of County Clare. It is both a Catholic parish and, since Tudor times, a civil parish. I would not make a hard rule about the headings for places like this, but suggest that reasonable ones would be:
"Location" or "Geography". Where it is, fields, bogs, mountains, loughs, villages etc. Perhaps where the name came from.
"Antiquities and History", or "Antiquities" describing ruined cromlechs, churches and castles and "History" for events and demographic and economic changes
"Economy", "Culture", "Sports", "Catholic parish" (churches and diocese) etc., or just "Today" or "Facilities" as a grab-bag for the shops, pubs, GAA club and churches.
"Townlands" at the back of the article.
I prefer the sequence suggested because I am more interested in the past, but perhaps readers are more interested in whether the place has any pubs or hiking trails, so that should be moved forward. I would not make a hard rule. But grouping everything under a "Civil parish" heading, as in Doonbeg (Killard), and shoving the Catholic parish to the back, makes no sense to me at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
An article like this may also describe a village that lies within the parish, particularly if the village has the same name as the parish, or the village can have a separate article. Kilfarboy and Milltown Malbay are separate articles, but Bunratty covers both village and parish. If the article covers the village, I would fit information about it under the above headings, not under a separate section. The village history is not separate from the parish history, the ruins in the village are no different from the ruins outside, a pub is a pub and so on. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Where there are 3 entities, the Village can take the bulk of the touristic stuff (Amenities). Kilfenora is a good example of this. However, most of the geography will be about things outside the village proper. I don't think it would be right to shoehorn geographic things into a section that contains none of the geographic features. The second entity (usually the RC parish) is mostly to do with bell, book & candle, current church buildings, parish priests etc. Ecclesial things have little to do with civil things. Beyond the church premises, they have no claim on the surrounding land. So things like geography and location and most antiquities would have nothing to do with the RC parish. That leaves us with only one entity capable of receiving such things - the civil parish. It is the only one of the 3 that covers the entire land of the parish. The only other alternative is to create a fourth section called "Today" that lumps all of location/geography/history/legends together. This solution would leave the other 3 entities looking rather bare. Re "shoving the Catholic parish to the back" - this was in response to other complaints that I was giving it undue weight and that the most commonly searched for stuff (e.g. amenities) ought to come first. You just can't win, can you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Laurel Lodged, you are starting from the premise that there must be three sections: Village, Civil Parish and Catholic Parish. I do not see a need for any of those sections. I also disagree with the interpretation of a church parish as being something confined to church premises. It is an area of land served by a priest. People would say "I come from such-and-such a parish" before the civil parishes had been invented. Neither the civil parish nor the church parish have any claim to the land, but they both cover the same area, or at least in these examples they do. The lead says the area is a civil and church parish that contains a village. The article should describe the area in terms of geography, ruins, tourist attractions, history, economy, etc. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Consideration also needs to be given to the problem of when the name of the town/village differs from the name of the parish. For example Kilkee, which is the name of the town, but Kilfearagh is the name of the civil parish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Kilkee is a small town, center of a Catholic parish by the same name. The Catholic parish was formerly called Kilfearagh, and that is the name of the civil parish. It is fairly common for the Catholic parish name to have changed from the name of the old church to the name of the main settlement. The two parishes should be covered by one article since they are coterminous, different names for the same area, with identical history and geography. Separating them would encourage forking. The village and two parishes could all be in one article, but the redirects may be a bit awkward. I am inclined to make a separate article for the two parishes with a name like Kilkee (Kilfearagh), which is the way the diocese would often refer to it in their publications. Links to the civil and Catholic parishes can be piped to that name. If the village and two parishes are combined, the old name should appear bolded early in the lead, something like: "Kilkee is a village in the civil parish of Kilfearagh and Catholic parish of Kilkee in County Clare... Aymatth2 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
So 1 article for the town and 1 article for the two parishes? Sounds fair to me. Most other villages would not deserve such treatment. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I took a first cut with Kilkee (parish), which I think is a more conventional title. Note that it links to Doonbeg (Killard), which has the Village (Old parish) form. I don't feel strongly about the name, except that I would guess more people would think of the area as Kilkee than as Kilfearagh. There is still a risk of forking - someone adding "nearby attractions" to the town article - but it should be manageable. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Clontarf 1000
Would anyone here, especially if they are in the vicinity of Dublin, be interested in helping some historians improve Wikipedia articles related to the Battle of Clontarf? We have been asked at the London office if we can help find some experienced Wikipedians for a possible editathon in Dublin on the 19th April as part of the thousand year anniversary of the battle. If any of you haven't been on an editathon yet they are usually good fun and a great opportunity to work with subject experts. Obviously I'm conscious that this is short notice, and more importantly it is your jurisdiction not ours - but we would be happy to support such an event at any level that you are happy with, from posting a pack of cheatsheets and similar bumph to putting in the geo notice and helping draft an event page. Regards Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC) AKA WereSpielChequers
Heretofore, the Irish grid reference parameter in Infobox settlement templates in Irish settlement articles linked to a map at the British Ordnance Survey website, showing a map of the location. This functionality appears to have been lost as the link now takes one to the website home page. This renders all these infobox grid reference parameters defunct. Can the functionality be restored by reprogramming the iem4ibx template which drives this mechanism, or has the British website simply dropped support for Irish location inquiries? — O'Dea (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Belfast was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in March 2007, and last reassessed in Sept 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since August 2008. I have done a GAR, and I feel that the article doesn't meet current GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable or not able to do the work at the moment, and there has been no progress. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, interested WikiProjects are being contacted as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Belfast/GA1 for more details. SilkTork✔Tea time21:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Several citations are dead and additional citations are needed as well as updating dated statements. I've done some citation work but doubt it is enough, so if you have the time or knowledge, please assist. ww2censor (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Please direct your attention to Talk:Ian_Gow#The_fully-protected_car_.28or_its_absence.29, where the question is whether the make of Ian Gow's car (the one he got blown up in) is relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. There's an ongoing dispute, going on for over three years, and an RfC (that is, you) might could help settle that. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
"Republic of Ireland" de-capitalisation in running text
Just to let you know, there is renewed energy in Wikimedia Ireland following the success of the Battle of Clontarf editathon. We are planning to take part in the Wiki Loves Monuments competition and are on the look out opportunities for a few more editathons.
The medium term plan organisationally is to set up as a Wikimedia Foundation recognised user group. That will give access to funding.
Encourage her to get involved. This is very much about raising the profile of Wikipedia and the associated projects in Ireland and getting new editors on board. RashersTierney (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
What?Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When?June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
There is some discussion going on at Talk:Nick Griffin about whether it is possible to have predecessor and successor boxes for TDs, MEPs etc. elected for multi-member constituencies. It is alleged that this constitutes original research. PatGallacher (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Europe may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer(Talk)18:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The Banner talk 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_15#Irish_national_media. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC) comments welcome.
Done. Specific assessment requests can be made at WP:IE/A#Requesting an assessment and will also likeyl appear here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log in the next day or two. Potential Irish articles appear at: User:AlexNewArtBot/IrelandSearchResult. These are three useful pages for project members to watchlist and become involved in assisting with the project assessments which are approaching 45,000 articles. ww2censor (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox government cabinet has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox cabinet. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)