Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:11, 15 June 2009 editDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits →Poll suggested by Domer48: sign← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:42, 3 December 2023 edit undoScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →ARCA: links 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WPBS|
{{IECOLL|notes= Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here. The discussion will be moderated by a panel appointed by ArbCom. Moderators can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. <!-- (please uncomment when the word "Moderators" gets changed back to "Members":) Please consider using {{TL|OT}} for clarity. --> If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links.
{{WikiProject Ireland}}

{{WikiProject Northern Ireland}}
Please, for the moment, refrain from discussing the individual Ireland naming options until we agree on a procedure.
{{WikiProject Unionism in Ireland}}

{{WikiProject Irish Republicanism}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{| class="infobox" width="150"
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|- align="center"
|maxarchivesize = 150K
| ]
|counter = 34
''']'''
|minthreadsleft = 4
----
|algo = old(15d)
|- align="center"
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive %(counter)d
| ] ] ] ] ]
|} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{archive box |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=15 |units=days |auto=yes |search=yes |index=/Archive index }}
{{Shortcut|WT:IECOLL}} {{Shortcut|WT:IECOLL}}


== Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland in articles == == Move: Republic of Ireland → Ireland (country) ==
{{atop}}

As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Misplaced Pages page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country.
I have replied to a post by ] on the ] about use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland in articles. He/she made what I think were fairly common sense proposals and my reply was really just re-wording simpifing of them.

My rewriting of Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal is here:

<small>
::In general the state should be referred to as ''Ireland''. There are situations however when, for clarity and/or disambiguation, distinctions will need to be made a) between Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island and b) to avoid confusion with regard to Northern Ireland. In these situation the preferred means to do so is to call the island ''Ireland'' and the state ''the Republic of Ireland'' (this can be emphasised where necessary by use the phrase ''island of Ireland'').
::While the final decision to use one set of terms or the other should be determined by the unique contexts of each situation, the following rules of thumb will generally hold true:
::* In lists of sovereign states, when discussing economies, governments or other qualities of states, the state should be referred to as ''Ireland'' e.g. ], ]
::* When describing the area served by an organisation that is primarily all-island, use the phrase ''island of Ireland'' in the first instance and either ''Ireland'' or ''island of Ireland'' thereafter e.g. ]
::* Always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. the President of Ireland, never the President of the Republic of Ireland)
::* When writing about the state and Northern Ireland in the same context, use ''the Republic of Ireland'' (or ''the Republic'' thereafter) e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland".
::* For articles where historical correctness is important (e.g. ]) the state should be called the ''Irish Free State'' for the period between 6 December 1922 to 29 December 1937. In the same kind of articles, for the period thereafter until the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act (18 April 1949), the state not be referred to as the ''Republic of Ireland'' (another means to distinguish Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island should be used as necessary).
</small>

Since there was no reply to Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, I've copied mine here to get some feedback. Obviously, more input than what is available here would be required to put these into the IMOS but since the contributors here represent a spectrum of opinion, I though it would be a good place get feedback. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

:I think thats pretty fair in that ROI really does only need to be used when Northern Ireland is directly mentioned alongside it. There is one small thing I disagree on though. ''e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland"''. In my opinion it should be described in general as "the border between the United Kingdom and Ireland" as that conforms to a more international NPOV. Everything else is fine though.] 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's probably a bad example for Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 09:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::: I agree with everything said above. ] (]) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::I agree with the proposal too, but (to User:MITH) "Republic of Ireland" should also be used when the island is mentioned, not only when Northern Ireland is mentioned. ] 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Well if both the island and the state are mentioned then two things can be done. If it's a political sentence then ] should be the disambiguator and correct name of the sovereign state be used. If it the context is geography then ROI can be used.] 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: is a good example of where ROI is needed. The opening sentence is ambiguous at present with the link to ] disguised by piping. ] (]) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree. ] 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I disagree, the article is perfectly clear.] 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's not "perfectly clear": it refers to Ireland, but links to Republic of Ireland. ] (]) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::''"it refers to Ireland, but links to Republic of Ireland"'' Hmm. Strange that. Especially as somehow ] seem to do the exact same thing?] 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::What point are you trying to make? If the article in question said Republic of Ireland, the meaning would be clear. Currently the meaning is ambiguous, and the link to Republic of Ireland is unhelpfully disguised. ] (]) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The introduction mentions all three entities (ROI, NI, and the island), therefore ''Republic of Ireland'' should be used. Readers shouldn't keep having to click on links to find out what entity is being referred to. ] 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Quite right. I've made the edit. ] (]) 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That is an excellent rule of thumb: if the reader needs to click the link (or hover over it) to know which "Ireland" is being referred to then we need to use alternative wording. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 09:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, the article on the state currently has a good wording to that effect. It reads something like, "Ireland is a state in northwest Europe. It covers five sixths of the island of Ireland." Reads very well, is succinct and clear. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::This is a good proposal. I agree with it too. --] (]) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Me too. I guess we are not going to discuss where those instances are piped to? ] (]) 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Consideration should be given to ''republic of Ireland'', that is ''republic'' all in lowercase font. I'm not happy with uppercase, as it adds confusion. Readers are pretty smart, and can work that out. ] (]) 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I'd be of the opinion that we should use ''Ireland'' where possible. In the event that we can't then there is little to be gained from using ''republic of Ireland'' over the well-established ''Republic of Ireland'', except to avoid using a capital that we might not like. That seems to part a little from NPOV IMHO. Whatever our opinion about ''Republic of Ireland'', it exists and it is used. Avoiding it like that seems a bit "sneaky". --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Nothing 'sneaky' about using ''republic of Ireland''. What's sneaky about it? The name of the state is Ireland, and I took a compromise position on my input here. My first option is Ireland. ] (]) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::''Republic'' should always be capitalised when writing ''Republic of Ireland''. That is the state's official description as declared in the Republic of Ireland Act. ] 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yeah, your quite right, ''Republic of Ireland'' is the states official description, but not the name. Don't agree it should always be capatalised, as it would depend on context. In the meaning of the 1949 Act, I agree, it should be capatalised. ] ] 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Just as a comment from your friendly moderator, I believe that this sets a good standard for how to reference the island, ROI, and No. Ireland within the body of articles, and should be part of the final result from this project. We still need to come back and address the names of the various articles that conflict at "Ireland", and potential effects on other article names, but this helps towards the complete solution. --] (]) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::If we can now formalize the establishment of a consensus for this approach, it would be a huge step forward. Or am I missing something? If not, could we poll the participants? --] (]) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have created a to show the difference between the current ] and the proposed change. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The example that the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland" was weak and controversial. I propose it should be changed to something like an increased number of shoppers to Newry should be described as coming from ''the Republic of Ireland'', not ''Ireland'', when referring to the state. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

::Much of this confusion is just a myth, and the danger is more confusion. The border is generally known as the ]. Why choose neologisms, especially invented for WP. "Republic of Ireland" should be totally avoided for naming purposes. There is little excuse for not being able to rework wording to avoid that term. A much better option would be to rename the island to "island of Ireland", and work around that. I seriously think that Irish editors might be in danger of being overgenerous in what is conceded here to a 'particular' pov element, who resent the state using the name Ireland. ] ] 11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Yep that border bit is wrong. It was admitted that the example was a bad one. Another example should be given for the ROI/NI case as the border should actually be referred to as the United Kingdom - Ireland border.] 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't think that the motives of many (if any) contributors here is any kind of resentment towards the name of the state.
:::BTW What neologisms have appeared during in this issue? What ones have been invented for Misplaced Pages? --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 11:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Here's one ], ] being used for the name of Ireland is another. ''"I don't think that the motives of many (if any) contributors here is any kind of resentment towards the name of the state."'', this has actually been 'said' by some of the editors involved in these discussions. ] ] 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Neither "Republic of Ireland" nor "United Kingdom" nor "border" are neologisms. Much less made up for Misplaced Pages. See .
:::::What have contributors said? That they "resent" the state using the name "Ireland"? --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::I think what you are looking for. RoI for name of Ireland is neologism in my book, Roi refers to a description of Ireland as a 'republic', as opposed to a 'monarchy'. It's akin naming UK as ], instead of ]. ] ] 12:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::And gets the hits. ] ] 13:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::"I think what you are looking for." It is identical to - and in both case the match is for "Republic of <u>Ireland - United Kingdom border</u>".
:::::::There is only one return for ". It is and index entry for "monarchy, of United Kingdom".
:::::::"Irish border" is the common name. I don't know why the article isn't located there. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed, the article should be renamed "Irish border". There shouldn't be any confusion since it's the only (international) border in Ireland. ] 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

::'''When referring to the population of "Ireland" but in meaning the republic, it is always 100% correct to say republic but never 100% correct to say that the republics population count is that of Ireland, in the choice between 100% or less accuracy 100% should always be taken, no?''' Saying that the state in the south will have the full title (Ireland) in all counts is not always right. If there were no acceptable term of distinction it would be a dilemma but there ''is''... Republic of Ireland, official ''description'' of the state <ref>]</ref> People may be of the opinion that Ireland "should be used as much as possible" but such as the case that "population of ] is 3.5 million" and "population of ] is 5 million", one should do anything possible to clarify, yes? It is not so much the case to decide which is more important, politically correct or most often used. It is the case to decide when and how to make the distinction between these two different entities. Maintaining only one requires the disposal or obscurity of the other. When describing geographical ''location'', the terms are ambiguous, either can be used. When describing population, infastructure and politics, Ireland can only be 100% correct in reference to the whole island. Use of the term Republic of Ireland ''can be'' correct 100% of the time. ~ ].].] 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there agreement on the proposal to alter IMOS as mentioned above? If not, why not? If this is the thing stopping us from moving forward then we need to be clear whether there are any issues. As I read it, there aren't many, bar sorting out how it applies to one or two one off circumstances such as Cork below.] 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:Under whose authority is consensus being sought? Have users been notified? When were we asked to agree or otherwise? Who is entitled to make this decision? What process is in place? ] (]) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(entering comment chronologically) I '''support''' rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's rewrite of Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, as stated at the beginning of the section.--] (]) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:Two further points are needed to say that
* where titles of potentially-ambiguous articles such as "Flag of Ireland" used "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland", the lede needs to explain that the (in this case) flag is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, and not that of Ireland (the island).
* where there is any risk of ambiguity, or of readers being misled, Republic of Ireland should be used, e.g. "RTE One is the oldest television station in Ireland" (which is quite untrue). ] (]) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

== Position argument summaries ==

Participants:
* ] (])
* <span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span>
*]
* ]<sup>]</sup>
* ] ]

:''Argument:'' The state article should be located at ] because Ireland is the state's common name.
:''Counter argument:'' Not all articles on states are located at their common name (e.g. ])
:''Summary:'' While not all articles on states are located at their common name, almost all are. If not they are located at their official names.

:''Argument:'' The state article should be located at ] because that is the state's official name.
:''Counter argument:'' (1) Most articles on states on Misplaced Pages do not appear at the official name of the state (e.g. ] vs. ]); (2) The state's official name is ambiguous as it is also the name of ], the island.
:''Summary:'' Most articles on states do not appear at the official name of that state instead they appear at their common names. Most states' names are not ambiguous.

:''Argument:'' The state article should be located at ] because the Irish Constitution refers to it as a State.
:''Counter argument:'' Some people think that a state is a subset of a country.
:''Summary:'' Using ] could mislead readers as to the state of the state.

:''Argument:'' The state article should be located at ] because ''country'' is the common word for a sovereign state.
:''Counter argument:'' Ireland-the-island is also commonly called a country, there may be confusion between the two.
:''Summary:'' The entire island of Ireland and the state of Ireland can be considered countries by different interest groups.

:''Argument:'' The island article should be located at ] because the island named Ireland goes back much further than the state.
:''Counter argument:'' Using ] for the island prevents the current state from having an article under its Constitutionally-defined name and common name.
:''Summary:'' Both the island and the sovereign state have justifiable reasons to using the title "]".

:''Argument:'' The current ] article should be located at ] because it is ]. It is about more than just the island in a geographic sense.
:''Counter argument:'' Expanding a geographic article more to include non geographic information leans towards satisfying a certain POV as there is no identifiable obvious primary topic.
:''Summary:'' Some editors see the island as the primary topic, while others apply it to the sovereign state.

:''Argument:'' The article on the state must be moved from ] because ''Republic of Ireland'' is not the official name or most common name of the state of the state.
:''Counter argument:'' (1) Nearly all articles on states on Misplaced Pages are located at a title that is not the official name of the state (e.g. '']'' not ''Federal Republic of Germany'', '']'' not ''Commonwealth of Australia''). (2) There is no such obligation to move any one of these articles just because it is at the title that is not the name of the state. (3) The article cannot be moved to Ireland, because that is the name of the island, and ''Republic of Ireland'' is the official description and a commonly-used alternative name.
:''Summary:'' ] is a once off case. Articles are usually located at their common names and if not, they are located at their official names instead. In the Republic of Ireland's case neither is the case.

:''Argument:'' The title should be away from ], because while use of the term Republic of Ireland could be declared as relatively common, its use is erroneous and is mostly done by the British media who have not changed their practices since the ].<sup>this argument needs to be rephrased to avoid "negative arguments"</sup>
:''Counter argument:'' The phrase is used by books, academic journals and TV, radio and press in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide. There is nothing unusual about the of either ''Republic of Ireland'' or ''Ireland'' to refer to the state by the British press. Neither is it "erroneous" - it is not erroneous to call France ''France'' instead of ''the French Republic''. The Belfast Agreement was a wide ranging agreement between two states: neither Misplaced Pages nor the press is bound by it.
:''Summary:'' While some believe its use to be erroneous, others believe that it is a perfectly correct term to use.

:''Argument:'' While the term ] was invented by the Irish Government, the Irish Taoiseach who passed it, John Costello made it clear it was not to be used as a name ( or ]). Use of the term only spread as the British government refused to recognise the constitutional name of the country making ROI more common in the UK until 1998.
:''Counter argument:'' ''Republic of Ireland'' is commonly used by books, academic journals, TV, radio and print media in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide. It is not certain how Costello intend it to be used, but, whatever his intentions, it has widespread use as name for the state today.
:''Summary:'' While officially not meant to be a name, the description Republic of Ireland is sometimes used by people instead of its official and common name in circumstances where context is not clear.

:''Argument:'' The title ] may suggest to a reader that it is the name of the country, as every other country article either uses either an official name or the most common short form name; of which Republic of Ireland is neither.
:''Counter argument:'' Republic of Ireland is a common name for the country in question. Whether it is shorter or longer than the official name is of no consequence. The opening line of the lede and/or a hatnote can explain to the reader that the "official name" is Ireland. <sup>Doesn't really argue the point that ROI is not a name, nor the most common one even if it is deemed as one regardless of the facts.</sup>
:''Summary:''

:''Argument:'' The title should remain at ] because it is commonly used by government, media and the populace whenever necessary to disambiguate between the state and the island, and the island article is already at ].
:''Counter argument:'' ] is not the state's name nor is it the most common name, nor is it commonly used by government media and populace when disambiguation is not necessary. Also the location of the island article (currently at ]) is also subject to change under this process.
:''Summary:'' Republic of Ireland is usually only used when dismbiguation is necessary.

:''Argument:'' Misplaced Pages is supposed to educate and enlighten readers, and not confuse. A pretence by Misplaced Pages that 'Republic of Ireland' is the name of the state has no educational value whatsoever.
:''Counter argument'': Some editors claim that readers might not be able to understand the complexity of one of two states on an island assuming the name of the entire island.
:''Summary'':

:''Argument:'' The state article should be located at ] because the state owns 85% of the island.
:''Counter argument'': The state does not control or claim 100% of the land surface of the island. The remaining 15% is Northern Ireland.
:''Summary'': Area covered by Northern Ireland or the republic has nothing to with any potential article names on Misplaced Pages.

:''Argument:'' There is clearly a need to disambiguate between the island and the state, and use of the real-world name of the island and the real-world official description of the state allows us to do so without use of artifical disambiguators such as , , , etc.
:''Counter argument'': It is better to change to our own article names by consensus or an agreed process.
:''Summary'': We can use either real-world article titles or come up with our own.

==Proposal to move forwards==

{{Discussion top|This proposal failed to achieve moderator support within the alloted timescale}}

The general opinion I'm getting from the comments above and on ] that, although some users might like the Arbitration Committee to choose a particular choice of article title, most users believe that it is highly unlikely that the ArbCom will do this as doing so would be tantamount to settling a ], something they have traditionally been loathe to become involved with.

It also seems that the moderators do not propose to force a particular means of settling this dispute on us. Originally I thought that this was a failing by the moderators, but after consideration I no longer think that. I expect that the moderators feel that by not endorsing one scheme over another they remain perceived as less biased. On reflection, I think this is beneficial.

Therefore we are left having to find a way of solving this ourselves. What I propose here is, I hope, the start of that process. It is not a specific proposal on how the articles should be named, nor is it even a specific proposal on how to decide that; instead it is an outline of how the whole process should work, and a mechanism by which we chose the way forward. It also seeks to establish ground rules and the start of a time line. What I am suggesting below may sound unnecessarily bureaucratic, however I don't believe it actually is. Partly the verbiage is because I have tried to spell out in detail how this should operate in an effort to avoid subsequent ].

===Ground rules (proposal)===
'''Accepting this proposal'''
# Users should indicate below whether they '''support''' or '''oppose''' this proposal.
## IP addresses may not participate in this poll.
## Users may change their vote at any point up to the close of the poll.
# This poll closes at 23:59 (]) on the evening of Sunday 14th June. After the poll has closed, this proposal is deemed to have succeeded if:
## more users vote to support than vote against it; and
## at least two moderators vote in favour of it, and none vote against it.
# Any discussion of this should be made in the relevant section.
## Comments interspersed with the votes may be deleted by any user.
## As a corollary, a vote to accept this proposal cannot be conditional on a particular amendment.
# In addition to voting, users may propose amendments to these basic ground rules, an example of which is given below.
## Amendments must be proposed no later than 23:59 (UTC) on the evening of Thursday 11th June and not altered after this date.
## Amendments are decided by vote and are subject to the same rules as the main vote, including the closing date.
## As an exception, there is no requirement for any moderators to endorse or not oppose any amendment for them to take effect.
# In the event of several seemingly-incompatible amendments being accepted, the moderators shall, at their sole discretion, resolve the incompatibility; they may do this in any manner, including (but not limited to):
## by deeming each of the incompatible amendments to have failed;
## by only accepting the amendment with the most endorsements;
## by synthesising a combined amendment combining the key properties of all the seemingly-incompatible amendments.
# The moderators' decision (whether by unanimity, majority, or unopposed unilateral action) can only be overruled by the moderators themselves, or by the Arbitration Committee.
# If this proposal has been endorsed, any successful amendments shall be applied to these ground rules and the result published here.

'''Selecting an on-going process'''

# Any user may propose a process by which we decide how to select the names of the articles.
## A user may not propose more than one process.
## All processes must be proposed by 23:59 (UTC) on Wednesday 17 June, and not modified after this date.
## Proposals may be made before the adoption of these ground rules (on 14 June).
# A user may abandon a proposed process in which case it shall be removed from the poll unless another proposer can be found.
# The rules above regarding comments and protracted discussion apply here too.
# A process is only deemed admissible if, in sole opinion of the moderators:
## it is not unduly biased towards any particular outcome (with that the ] ''may'' be prefered in the event of a tie break);
## it must clearly set out how the whole remainder of the process will work, including setting out a time scale for the process; and
## it should yield a result no later than 1 Dec 2009, preferably earlier;
# Processes may choose to address a wider range of issues than simply the names of the two Ireland articles.
## However it should be noted that the Irish Collaboration Wikiproject only has a ArbCom mandate to make a binding decision on the names of those two articles.
# The process to be adopted will be determined by ], with each user ranking the possible proposals in order.
## Users ''may'' choose to only rank their top few proposals, and not need to rank every proposal; there is no way of choosing a 'worst' choice without ranking all other proposals.
## IP addresses may not participate in this poll.
## Users may change their vote at any point up to the close of the poll.
# The moderators' decision (whether by unanimity, majority, or unopposed unilateral action) can only be overruled by the moderators themselves, or by the Arbitration Committee.

—] (]) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

====Support / Oppose====

''Poll closes at 23:59 (UTC) on Fri 12 Jun. Comments made in this section may be deleted by any user''

# '''Support''' —] (]) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' -] (]) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' -] (]) 21:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' -]<sup>]</sup> 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' --] (]) 23:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support'' --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - ] (]) 09:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' -] (]) 11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - ] (]) 11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' - -- ]·] 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

====Discussion of ground rules====

Any thoughts? —] (]) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were !voting on whether we should accept the "ground rules" or not, and not ? Anyway, here are the reasons I gave on why I opposed the IP proposal above: "(As a former long-term IP and writer of ]) If this is to be a '''vote''' then IP votes should not be counted in the result, however they should be able to '''!vote''' and contribute to discussion at the same level as everyone else." --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::Why would it take until December to have an outcome! This process has already been going on for months. Any way, nothing new is proposed above. The statement process has already taken place. The arguments have been put. What was needed was a decision. December 2009! Is this process a ruse!!! I think so. Regards. ] (]) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::: We're getting some leadership at long last, if it takes to December then thats how long it takes. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Why wait until December? Well we're not necessarily. I hope it will be resolved well before that. 1 Dec 2009 is really more of a backstop than an actual deadline: a proposal that is likely to have everything fully resolved by August would be accepted under these ground rules, whereas a proposal that faffed around until sometime next year would be disqualified. The last thing I want is for editors in favour of the status quo to force a proposal through that will, literally, run for ever (e.g. a proposal that says let's wait until we have 100% agreement). But equally, I'd rather take a while to do things properly and not rule out wider consultation simply on grounds of time. December is a compromise between the two extremes. —] (]) 11:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
: Isn't the "amendment" simply an example, rather than a specific proposal? Who is the proposer and why is everyone supporting or opposing it? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 07:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, it was intended as an example, and as such I had deliberately chosen something that I thought there was broad consensus ''against''. However I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to express support or opposition to it. At least that way we've thought about it before any future issues involving IPs come to a head. –] (]) 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As a supporter of the ''status quo'', can I say 1) I resent the implication that supporters of the ''status quo'' would try and keep this going on indefinitely - I've sure I've argued previously that we need a final decision to stop the ''pro change'' people from continually bringing up move polls every couple of months! 2) 1st December is too far away. We've been at this particular process since last year. 31st July would be more preferable, 31st August probably more realistic. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
: First, I apologise if I in any way implied that any specific pro-status quo user might choose to manipulate the process in this way. Perhaps there are users who would do that, and perhaps not; I'm certainly not suggesting that you or any other specific user would. The point of the deadline is to reassure users opposed to the status quo that the procedure cannot be railroaded in this manner.
: On you second point, yes I agree that 1 Dec is too far away. I'm intending shortly to propose the process suggested ] by BrownHairedGirl. Her process involves four stages: statement consolidation on problem 1, a vote on problem 1, statement consolidation on problem 2.1 or 2.2 (whichever is relevant following the previous step, and a vote on problem 2.1/2.2. My initial thoughts are that the statement consolidation steps should take a fortnight each, and the votes a week each. This would have the whole matter tied up by 3rd August.
: However, others may have different opinions on how this should be resolved, and I wouldn't want to prevent someone from proposing a longer, slower process. That said, I shan't be voting for a process that drags out until 1 Dec unless there are very clear benefits to spending that long over it. 1 Dec is the point where we say: that's unquestionably too long—you're not even allowed to propose that.
: But if you still feel I've got the back-stop date wrong, feel free to propose an amendment to change it. That's what's the amendment mechanism is for.
: —] (]) 12:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for the response. If we could finally resolve this by 3rd August, that'd be great. I'm wondering, though, if you're aware of ] proposal to amend the prior Arbcom ruling, and ] which was recently moved to a subpage of this project? ]<sup>]</sup> 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:::And of my objections to the completeness of that poll (see its Talk page)? -- ]·] 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

===Amendments (proposal)===

'''Example amendment: Anonymous users'''

''Although given as an example, if a proposer can be found, users may vote for/against this as with any other amendment.''.

Replace the rules barring anonymous users with: ''IP addresses may participate unless an administrator deems them to be a sock puppet of another account that has already voted''.

# '''Oppose''' —] (]) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Support''' -] (]) 17:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 20:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - ] (]) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' --] (]) 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' ]<sup>]</sup> 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - ] (]) 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - ] (]) 11:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - --] (]) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - -- ]·] 06:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' --] (]) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

===The poll itself (proposal)===
First, I do able setting up some ground rules makes sense, and thus applaud the above effort.

As for the poll itself, reading ] (this suggestion version), I don't think this will solve all the issues, or at least in the best manner.

I suggest that the poll we need will be a three question poll - all other issues should fall out of that: ('''DO NOT VOTE YET''' I'm only seeking input)
:'''Question 1''': Which of the following options should be used to name the island of Ireland, the nation-state of Ireland, and the disabmiguation part for "Ireland"?
::a) ] for the island, ] for the disambiguation page, and the answer to Question 2 for the nation-state.
::b) ] for the island, ] for the disambiguation page, and the answer to Question 2 for the nation-state.
::c) None of the above
:'''Question 2''': Which of the following should be used to name the nation-state of Ireland, '''presuming''' that ] is used either for the island or the disambiguation page and thus unavailable as an option?
::a) ]
::b) ]
::c) ]
::d) ]
::e) (other possible choices?)
::f) None of the above
:'''Question 3''': In articles relating to the nation-state of Ireland in which other uses of Ireland (such as the island, Northern Ireland, or the like) may be used or confused with the meaning of the world "Ireland", what term should be used to describe that nation-state? (This would apply to both article titles such as "Economy of (name)" and within the body of such articles.
::a) country of Ireland
::b) state of Ireland
::c) Republic of Ireland
::d) (other possible options?)
::e) None of the above

These three questions, as best as I can tell from reading, are the core dispute, and smaller issues (such as the most recent discussion of when it's necessary to spell out the name of the nation-state of Ireland (per Q3) in articles) will fall out from that. This also reflects the fact that there is minimal to no consensus to have ] be the nation-state.

Please note if you have any other valid choices for Q2 or Q3, now's the time to voice them. This will be a straight-up poll; there will be discussion on a talk page but no need to discuss votes here.

If, for some reason, "None of the above" receives majority votes, then we'll need to come back here, but I think this poll (with announcements of it on ], ] and elsewhere) will resolve 95% of the issues, the rest of sweeping the last bit of dust under the rug. --] (]) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

====Discussion of the poll itself====
:Can I just clarify, are you proposing this as one possible way forward per the ''Selecting an on-going process'' section (above)? Or are you using your position as a moderator to say that this is how it will be done? I've no problem with either, but it would be useful to clarify things. If you're doing the latter, then we can abandon what I started above as it no longer have a role. —] (]) 16:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::I am asking, as a moderator, does this poll make sense as part of the on-going process. I am not saying this '''is''' the poll. --] (]) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Personally I would add one more option to Question 1:
:::(c) ] for the nation-state, ] for the disambiguation page, and another option (] or ]) for the island.
:::(d) None of the above
:::] (]) 16:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Understandably, that's the logical third choice, but in reviewing all pass input to this project, it's the one with the ] of passing (this is a moderator opinion to simplify matters). But this is why I've left a None of the Above option - if for some reason everyone involved here has misread the discussion and people really want this option, then ok, we can go back and discuss this. If others think the nation-state option as ] should be included before the poll, then it's possible. --] (]) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::If we are going to use ], then we shouldn't be presuming we know which options have a ]. IMHO, that will be most people 2nd choice, and will therefore end up as as the preferred option. Lets give people the choice, otherwise there's no point. We might as well ask the mods to make a decision. ] (]) 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Good point, that should then be an option, but I would have trouble justifying "Island of Ireland" as a renaming option for the island since I don't see any support for this; if we did include that, we'd basically need two more questions in the same manner as Q2 and Q3 for the nation-state. --] (]) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Island of Ireland is used , relatively speaking. ] (]) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I definitely wouldn't go for 'Ireland (country)' for the state's name as there are at least 700,000 people in Northern Ireland who claim that their country is Ireland, the whole island. That is why they are called Irish nationalists. I think, if anything, 'Ireland (country)' should be one of the options under Ireland, the island. Odd how it has not appeared given that even all the Protestant churches are based on an all-Ireland structure. 'Ireland (state)' is my preferred option for the state, and 'Ireland (country)' or 'Ireland (island)' for the whole country. ] (]) 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:::(ec) @Masem: I probably didn't express my question very well. What I'm trying to establish is, are you suggesting this poll as one of the options in the ''Selecting an on-going process'' section above, or do you not wish to carry out the process I mentioned above? Clearly if one of the moderators doesn't wish the process I was proposing above to make place then it is not viable. That would strike me as a bit sad as it is the only suggestion that I've noticed that has received (so far) unanimous support. Nevertheless, as one of the moderators how you continue this is your call, but it would be nice to know. —] (]) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Consider it as a user-proposed option under #1 of the ground rules. --] (]) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::Question 3 should definitely be included, but I think it should be more detailed. Participants should be offered the same options, but the vote should be on rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's . ] 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:::This would be part of the cleanup after counting the results that I offer. The core of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal above is that there are set names for the nation-state, island, and other factors, and once those are set, it describes the appropriate choices when to use them in articles. The latter aspects are important to recognized but less critical to the issue of the naming scheme here. If there is dispute that rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's suggested scheme is inappropriate, then we can work some more, but for this core poll, which, as noted, is 95% of the issue, let's keep it focused on the basic goals of the collaboration to get that resolved. --] (]) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::1 December is a total joke. No decent reasons given why it would take until 1 December to decide the titles of 3 articles! Perhaps you should see my posting from months ago calling for an April or May deadline etc....1 December! Regards. ] (]) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::ps...who is the ''joker'' proposing "Ireland (soverign nation)" or looking for "other possible choices". Adding in options like that is simply pretending matters are more complicated then the are. The real choice is very simple:
:::::#Dab/IRL(island)/IRL (state) '''v'''

:::::#status quo.

:::::Why the desire to throw out the months of "process" and pretend we are starting from scratch. The arguments have been well had and thrashed out. Lets get to a poll. Have the propsers even read the project page with its statements. Lets have a conclusion at the end of the month. Regards. ] (]) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Superfopp that Q 3 needs to be thought about more. For example I'm not sure why "]" could be considered ambiguous as geographical islands don't have economies (At the moment it's just a redirect). For actual ambiguous titles I thought that applying the state article title was the obvious solution. eg. ] or whatever it turns out to be. Rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal also needs to be brought in somewhere.] 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider ] used as the nation-state of Ireland as out of contention considering the . I would suggest that our policies of ] and in particular ] would also prevent us using this option. I hope that helps move the discussion along. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:Please can we keep focused on how we are going to decide this rather than reiterating the arguments for and against specific choices? If the arguments are so clear-cut against a specific choice then let's ] and assume that people won't vote for it. —] (]) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::Re.: "Please can we keep focused on how we are going to decide this rather than reiterating the arguments for and against specific choices?" - It will be decided by way of a poll - The arguments have already been had out. Agreed. Lets get on with a poll. Regards. Its:
:::::#Dab/IRL(island)/IRL (state) '''v'''

:::::#status quo.
::Regards. ] (]) 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I disagree. The community needs a free and full choice of options under STV. That way we will get a true picture of which is the most acceptable option. ] (]) 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
::::I have to agree that if STV is to be used, all reasonable options are to be considered. This will minimize future ambiguity on the results of the poll. (And yes, we're not talking about what options are best supported, this is just to outline what the poll should look like). --] (]) 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ras52 you say that " if want to put additional requirements on proposals, propose an amendment to ground rules to require them" I placed my suggestions under the title "Proposed amendments" could you explain were I should propose if not under "Proposed amendments." Masem I'll accept all "reasonable options" as long as they are not in conflict with Wiki Policies. That is, they are fact based supported by our policies of ] using ] and subject to ]. This will remove future ambiguity and command the support of the Community and no group of editors. This will in my opinion Fmph give a true picture of which is the most acceptable option. Thanks, --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:The "Example amendment: Anonymous users" section was intended as an example of how to submit an amendment. If you do something similar and append it to the "Proposed amendments" section (i.e. immediately below the example), you won't go far wrong. Make sure you make it clear which rules you are amending, or if inserting additional rules, where they belong. We can then vote on it in the same way as the example one. Also, if you have several orthogonal changes to propose, if they can logically be separated into separate amendments, that might be useful, especially if some proposals are more likely to be accepted than others. —] (]) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ras52. Can I just clarify, is it the opinion of all, that a ] is the only solution being considered as part of the ''Selecting an on-going process.'' Is there any alternative to polling and what are they? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 07:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:Domer48, So far as I'm concerned you can propose any process you like so long as it isn't overtly biased and will yield a result in the alloted time frame. I'm not quite sure I can see how a process without polling will work, but perhaps that's just lack of imagination on my part. But if you have any ideas of how a process without (or with less) polling would work, please go ahead and propose it. Irrespective of whether it is process finally chosen, it will be interesting to see how such a process might work. —] (]) 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I '''stongly oppose''' this type of poll as a means of resolving the problem, as it is still dependent on dividing up the issues and voting separately on them. As I have stated many times previously, the only way to achieve a fair and stickable compromise is to agree EVERYTHING as a COMPREHENSIVE package. The solution - it seems clear to me - lies in a compromise: change the title of the ROI article in return for an agreement that ROI can be used within article texts when disambiguation is appropriate. If there is to be any poll, therefore, it should be on a comprehensive package as was proposed on the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force. By dividing up the issues, we invite the majority (even if it is only a narrow 51% majority) to "win" on every issue, leaving a disgruntled minority; whereas a compromise means 100% win something but 100% also concede something. ] (]) 10:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
: I strongly disagree with Mooretwin's POV on this. There's no point on having a "comprehensive" package just to make sure some editors aren't unhappy. This process is about deciding what is the most NPOV and best solution. What makes editors happy or unhappy is irrelevant it's all about deciding what each individual aspect is best for the reader.] 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
::In that case, why is a poll being proposed at all? ] (]) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Different editors think different solutions are best for the readers. Thats what this all comes down to.] 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, that is correct. And there is no consensus. Hence the problem. Consensus will not be achieved by a poll, which basically comes down to one "side" winning by force of numbers. If we compromise, however, we can achieve a consensus whereby we all gain something but also concede something. ] (]) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:At the end of this, this is a compromise. When all the issues and their resolve are put together and laid out, I very much doubt that any editor without an active interest in the area will find the results to be 100% in their favor, but instead will find a number of results that he or she is satisfied with, and a number that they are ok with and a few that they disagree with but understand the consensus process. That's the whole point of consensus is to find a solution that the bulk of involved editors can agree they can work with even if it is not their preferred choice. There's a reason that the call to use STV here makes sense, because we can at least consider editors' second and third options should they choose to provide that. If we were to try to define the "comprehensive" plan, there would exactly one possible option for each involved editor, and we'd never get anything done that way. This type of poll (the one I proposed) is the shortest route to establishing the baseline issues and closing this issue done for the long term. --] (]) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:::It's not a compromise if you separate out the issues to be decided upon separately, because all you achieve is a "winners takes all" scenario, and it does not encourage compromise. A "winner takes all" is not, by definition, consensus. If such a poll occurs, for example, I will vote for the same outcome in all three polls. In a package solution I would be required to compromise. Again, I ask: what is wrong with IDTF proposal which gained more support than any previous suggestion? ] (]) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:: I agree with Mooretwin on this, there needs to be a reasonable compromise which will lead to both sides concerns being addressed. Certain options are only acceptable to some people if things in another of the questions are accepted. Perhaps it would be better to combine the 3 questions into one just with a far larger number of options which people could rank. So for example, people could vote for...

::: 1) Change title from ] to ] using a pipelink of ] in most articles and text except for when there is a clear case of ambiguity because of Northern Ireland or the Island of Ireland, in which case... ] and "Island of Ireland" is used.

::: 2) Keep title at ] using a pipelink of ] in most articles and text except for when there is a clear case of ambiguity because of Northern Ireland or the Island of Ireland, in which case... ] and "Island of Ireland" is used.

::: 3) Change title from ] to ] and ONLY use ] in articles and text when talking about the sovereign state. Move the article on the island to ] and always use the full title in articles text to avoid confusion with the state.

:: Ofcourse if we did something like that there would probably be more than a dozen options to choose from but atleast it deals with the whole problem, not splitting them into questions when certain things like the title and how to talk about it within articles is linked. ] (]) 13:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, IMO you have hit the nail on the head above, "establishing the baseline issues and closing this issue for the long term." The base line issues have not been clearly defined. Any proposal must begin by clearly defining the problem to be resolved, and then providing a rational for the proposal which attempts to address the issue. I don’t think there is much support for a ], and it appears that it is seen as a last option. Likewise, consensus on what the problem is has not been established. Some attempt at defining the problem was attempted . The statements can be divided into two clear groups, those statements which addressed themselves to the possible solution without defining the problem and those which addressed themselves to the actual problem, but not the solution. Would it be possible for the moderators to present what they define the problem to be, or ask the editors who put forward a solution/problem to attempt the opposite. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
: There is really only one problem. Ireland is ambiguous, but i know thats something you do not accept. ] (]) 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please ]--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
: Ummm i think you will find i did comment on content, i answered your question. You asked the mods to define the problem, i simply answered the question in its simplest form.. Ireland is ambiguous which is why all of these problems arise. My comment about you not accepting it wasnt meant in a nasty way, just recognition that you have disagreed with this point in the past. ] (]) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is no more or no less ambiguous than the use of IRA and PIRA in Articles and we reached a solution. So your assumption is wrong. Likewise NI is no more or no less ambiguous than IRL. As ras52 has said “Processes may choose to address a wider range of issues than simply the names of the two Ireland articles.” I’m trying to formulate a process that a) clearly defines the problem, and b) provide a solution that attracts the support of the community and no one group of editors. Consensus seems unlikely, and ] does not command much support. The solution is based on what’s good for Misplaced Pages, not to prevent disruption. Now you suggest that Ireland is ambiguous, and that is the only problem? Would you like then to be first to set out to clearly define the problem, ] the point. I’m sure every editor involved would benefit and would provide the moderators the opportunity of entering in on the ground floor so to speak, instead of having to pull together a number of strings in a process they inherited. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
: Well you proved my point about you not accepting that Ireland is ambiguous, I have told you the problem very clearly. '''Ireland is ambiguous''' That is why there is a dispute about where the articles belong and how to describe the different things in the text of articles across wikipedia. Until you are prepared to accept this i dont see how you are going to be happy with anything that takes place here, because it goes against your core belief. ] (]) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

'''BACK TO COMMENTING ON MASEM'S POLL'''

Masem, I agree with what you have here. I commend you for doing a very good job with difficult material, but like ], I belleve that Q1 should contain "(c) '''Ireland''' for the nation-state, '''Ireland (disambiguation)''' for the disambiguation page, and another option '''(Island of Ireland''' or '''Ireland (island)''') for the island." I agree with him that the Single Transferrable Vote will solve any dificulty that might arise, and consider that all three options be available in the spirit of fairness. Clearly the '''vote''' will winnow out that option if it is not preferred. -- ]·] 06:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:Under Q3 you might add '''the Irish state''' and '''the Irish Republic''' which are terms that have some currency. -- ]·] 06:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Masem, imo Question 1 needs this option added:

* d) ''']''': an article explaining the general topic of Ireland, introducing and explaining the current ambiguity and modern day divergence between the island and the present state in prose format, and detailing at top-level in summary style, all conceivable Ireland/Irish topics, such as History, Geography, Politics, Culture etc etc etc, with sensible formatting to fork to both all Ireland sub topics, and other specialist articles (] being the most obvious). This is similar but intentionally not being proposed as identical to, the treatment of the ambiguity of the word China. ''']''': in detail coverage of the ''modern state'' only, with the bare minimum background/history bloat needed to understand the present state, and a logical top level home port for truly ROI only topic forks such as education/post formation history. ''']''': in detail coverage of the geography of the Ireland, and in detail coverage of any and all feasible Ireland (island) topics, such as telecoms cooperation, trade and transport, all Ireland sports, sinking island conspiracy theories etc etc etc, that otherwise in too much detail would unbalance the main ] article. This does give rise to three levels of coverage for some topics like Transport, but invariably, for most, the bottom level is already split between ROI/NI anyway, so it's no big deal.

This is an option that gets significant support when more thoughtfull people come to the issue, and are allowed to see the wood from the trees, the wood being the options most sensible and plausible to outside observers, the trees being the interminably persistant but ultimately circular reasoning of some of the regulars, who of course can only see one end all option, their 'piss everyone off' solution as they often call it, which bizarrely defines the word "Ireland" as having two totally separate meanings, much like Georgia. If any neutral editor were writing ] from scratch, they would never come to that solution - it is the devil child of years of pov/tendentious disruption, and is the sad end product of argument fatigue, the lowest intellectual common denominator.

This option would hopefully provide the true dam breaking 'compromise solution' under the ] system to break the inevitable no consensus result between a status quo/simplistic 2 option dab page poll. The best minor advantage from this option is that nobody will ever be able to edit war over whether just ] is a sensible incoming link from other articles: if editors at the incoming article themselves can't decide using the context a more sensible target for an incoming link, it can be just left at Ireland - the reader is not disadvantaged by being presented with a meaningless 2 way dab page, they can *gasp* find out for themselves. ] (]) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:I have not seen that option considered before (or if it was, it got drowned out), but seems like a potential sensible solution. We'd still need ] as part of that. --] (]) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:: Is a good option which shouldnt be left out yes. Very good point about editors on other articles not having to argue about which Ireland a link should go to in certain cases where it could be about either or both the island and the state ] (]) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

== Rannpháirtí anaithnid's voting proposal ==

Like many people, I think, I would like to see this process end. IMHO there is no likelihood of discussion ending on this page. I think a binding vote is the only possibility (as was used to in the case of ]). This vote should take place on a subpage of ] and be widely publicised.

In the case of Danzig/Gdansk, there were only two choices so a straight vote could determine the most preferred choice. In the case of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, there are many possible outcomes. I've taken a look at Masem's proposal above, but I don't see how it will lead to a genuinely preferred decision (or even how, at the end of, an indisputably conclusive answer could be drawn). As a consequence, I think a vote by ] is the way to go. (PRSTV was recommended above by ras52 too.)

(For those unfamiliar with PRSTV, it is the electoral system used in Ireland. It's purpose is to determine the most preferred - not just the most popular - among multiple options. I've written ] with an example.)

I have prepared ]. The options I think are most likely are:

* Ireland / Republic of Ireland (status quo)
* Ireland as dab page → Ireland (island) / Ireland (state)
* Ireland / Ireland (island)
* Ireland / Ireland (state)

These can, of course, be added to or taken away from before a vote is run, but - obviously - once the vote is opened we cannot changed the options on the ballot.

I think the vote should be run over the course of one month. If we get broad agreement, why not start running the vote within next week? --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:Intriguing, you may have given me reason to ''rejoin'' the Ireland naming discussion 'fully', again. ] (]) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:Excellent proposal, but I disagree with having the arguments written beneath each option. ] 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, nice proposal but having the arguments beside them is a bad idea. Just the options should be there.] 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::OK, I'll take the arguments out. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Update: Done. I've removed the "arguments" from beneath the possible choices. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
:Note that I would be explicit about what content is ending up where (possibly a table format). There's also technically a 5th option, being Dab + Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland. I see no problem with this format to answer the basic naming question and leaving the other questions (what to distinguish Ireland (state) in article text)) --] (]) 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes I think the options should be a bit more explicit. I propose it be worded like this:
::A) the island at ___ / the state at ___ / disambiguation at ___
::etc etc
::] 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
::: If we went ahead with a vote just on the article name itself, what is going to happen about the other concerns raised like how it is mentioned in text. We need this resolved at the same time, there cant be a gap between the basic vote on where articles belong resulting in the articles being moved followed by weeks of debate about how to handle the new articles in text, during which we will see some editors going around removing ] from where there is a clear need to use the term to avoid confusion with the whole island. ] (]) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Good point, the two votes should be taken at the same time. I suggest we use ] as the basis of the second question (regarding usage in article text). ] 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be '''Ireland (Island)''' and '''Ireland (State)'''--] (]) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I've rewritten the options per Superfopp's suggestion. ]. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A vote on this single issue will not solve the dispute, since the dispute is much wider than this and covers references to the 26-county state in the texts of hundreds of other articles, and also articles about, e.g. "Politics of the Republic of Ireland". I therefore '''oppose''' it.
The solution lies in a compromise between the article names and the other issues as per the Task Force.
As I've said before, while I believe the state article should be at Republic of Ireland, I'm prepared for that to change in return for an agreement on the use of RoI elsewhere. In the absence of such an agreement, however, I will oppose the change of the current state article name.
] (]) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:As I said below. (Status quo) should not appear beside the voting options. In the real world does it say Fianna Fail (status quo)?] 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::"In the real world does it say Fianna Fail (status quo)?" No for much longer! I've taken it out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
BritishWatcher, I think (and hope) that we all know that some instances of the description '''Republic of Ireland''' will be used within articles for disambiguation. That's one of the things the description can do. It can be helpful. I don't think there is much opposition to the occasional use of that term WITHIN articles for the purposes of disambiguation. There would be opposition to a POV that tried to use it massively throughout most articles (which would be some people's desire evidently). But in my view Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's sandbox poll, with its Single Transferrable Vote, is an excellent way of settling the naming question. Specific rules for when to use the term '''Republic of Ireland''' within articles can be worked out, but I would not like to see you or Mooretwin blocking progress because of this. Mooretwin, I can equally take your sentence and mirror it, with clarifications: ''As I've said before, while I believe the state article should be at '''Ireland''', I'm prepared for it to be at '''Ireland (state)''' and understand that there needs to be an agreement on the use of '''Republic of Ireland''' elsewhere -- though its use must be restricted to instances of genuine ambiguity''. Does that help? -- ]·] 09:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

==Regaining some focus==

We seem to have two proposals on the table at the moment — Masem's poll with three separate questions, and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll with just one question. Rannṗáirtí has very helpfully produced a ] for his (though it might be worth moving that to a sub-page of this Wikiproject). Can I suggest that Masem does something similar? A lot of extra options have been proposed for Masem's poll, and I'm completely lost track of which ones Masem has agreed to add and which are not. Domer48 has repeatedly said that we use a mechanism that does not involve voting, and under the previous moderators there seemed to be consensus against voting. However to date, I have not noticed any proposals that don't involve voting and that actually stand a chance of yielding a result. I would therefore like to encourage Domer48 to come up with a formal proposal too.

Second, I notice that several users (including both moderators) have not ] to the ]. I said in those ground rules that they wouldn't come into force unless they had a majority of support ''and'' if the two moderators subscribed to them by midnight Sunday. Can I encourage people, particularly the moderators, to do this; or if they don't wish to support it, to say why not. (If the moderators would prefer to discuss that with me off-wiki, my email address is on my user page.)

Thirdly, can I repeat BritishWatcher's plea that we try to focus on the process by which we are going to resolve this, rather than going round in circles reiterating the arguments for and against Ireland the state and Ireland the island? I've not seen any new arguments raised, and anyway, the time to discuss that is after we have sorted out the process.

Finally, and rather more trivially, would anyone object if some of this page was archived? It is getting really rather long. I would suggest that everything before ] could safely be archived.

—] (]) 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
: Agreed with the above comments, although id say archive everything from before we got the new moderators.. it was a fresh start we should of refreshed the talk page then. ] (]) 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
: I will just comment that I have no problem with which poll, mine or Rannṗáirtí, just that I believe this is the path of least resistance to go forward; I have no strong ties to my own poll, and if Rannṗáirtí's is preferred, all the better. --] (]) 01:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:Archive a good idea, agree.--] (]) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::I agree. ] (]) 11:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I reserve the right to keen again if keening is warranted. -- ]·] 09:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

== Asarlaí's voting proposal ==

This combines elements of ] and ].

:'''Question 1:''' Under which titles should be placed the island of Ireland, the state of Ireland, and the disambiguation page for "Ireland"?

::A) The island at '''Ireland''' / the state at '''Republic of Ireland''' ''(status quo)''
::B) The island at '''Ireland (island)''' / the state at '''Ireland (state)''' / disambiguation at '''Ireland'''
::C) The island at '''Ireland''' / the state at '''Ireland (state)'''
::D) The island at '''Ireland (island)''' / the state at '''Ireland'''

:'''Question 2:''' In some articles there are occasions when distinctions should be made between Ireland-the-island, Ireland-the-state, and Northern Ireland. Where it isn't necessary to distinguish between these (for example in lists of sovereign states), the state should be referred to as "Ireland".

:Where it ''is'' necessary to distinguish between these, what term should be used to describe the state?

::A) Republic of Ireland
::B) state of Ireland

Opinions? ] 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first part is almost identical to the poll I posed, though formatted differently. The second part ... well ... it's a bit rulish, and most people won't adhere to it. But I guess if the result is community endorsed then it will be a good way of quenching edit-wars whenever the occur among users not familiar with the result. ] (<small>]</small>) 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:On the second part, there was good support for BlueHairedLawyers' proposal (]). We could run a simultaneous poll about that. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 08:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:: I agree, having a vote for or against that sort of statement explaining the ground rules for how to use Ireland in text i think is a fairer way and the vast majority would support it so it would be a much more solid agreement. The trouble with the above suggested poll is the large number who think the country article should be at ] will vote for that to be used in text, the large number strongly opposed to it will vote another way, simply creating more disagreement. We should try a vote on the sort of proposal mentioned above by coṁrá. ] (]) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Question 2 cannot be poled. Only discussion can sort that out as Rannpháirtí anaithnid has pointed out above me. Also no need to put (status quo) in the vote.] 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Yet again''' can I advise that separate polls on each issue are not organised as there will be no compromise and therefore no consensus. For example, if the above poll were run I would vote for A and A (no compromise). If a package is offered, however, I would have to accept a compromise. ] (]) 10:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:First, I always ''had'' supported a vote on Rannpháirtí anaithnid's ]. Second, I assumed the poll would be using STV (ranking in order of preference)? ] 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== Discussion on Ireland (island) vs. Ireland (state) (split from above) ==

I cannot see what the problem is with '''Ireland (island)''' and '''Ireland (state)'''? Why do you oppose this ], you must have some specific reservations which for the life of me i cannot recognise?
Ireland is an ] and Ireland is a recognised ] so what's the difficulty. Certainly, I agree that we ], north and south, also use the terms such as the Irish Republic, the Republic of Ireland and the Free State daily in conversation and communication because that is what we all know it as.--] (]) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:"I cannot see what the problem is..." Neither side can't. I can't see what's wrong with things as they are. We've been over and over this for years. See the archives on this page and many other, we've been through this time and time again. There's no point any more, we won't achieve a consensus. Let's just vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::Not until I get an answer to my question by anyone who disagrees with using '''Ireland (island)''' and '''Ireland (State)'''. --] (]) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, because it inconveniences ALL readers who wish to find the Ireland article because it sends them to a disambiguation page. It also doesn't solve the dispute about referring to Ireland within other articles. ] (]) 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::We must recognize, Mooretwin, that initially it will take work for us to do a lot of piping. I'm willing to help with that. Once the piping is done, we can watch for '''Ireland''' links and pipe them as an ongoing task for the Wikiproject Ireland. Regarding the use of RoI as a disambiguator within articles, what is your proposal? (Make it again, here, succinctly. Do not point us back to months-old discussion on another page, please.) -- ]·] 09:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::A bot could do all of that because it would simply be a case of changeling *all* <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki>, *all* <nowiki>]</nowiki> or <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki> then finally *all* (few) <nowiki>]</nowiki> to <nowiki>]</nowiki>.
:::::That's not the issue. The issue would be why would we move a page that got 1,763 hits last month (the dab page) over a page that got 200,905? There's no need for it. Nobody goes there. 151,456 people found ] quiet easily last month without it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 09:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

==The "Britannica solution"==

:::IMHO ] is a ] (i.e. deals with the history, culture, geography, people of all of Ireland). The article currently at ] is a subtopic of that (in respect of history, culture, geography, people etc.) Some people are unhappy at the article on the state being at ] and would like it to be moved to ]. That would be fine by me. ] the ] page would be my last choice, since it would introduce a needless step into the equation (everything you might need to know about Ireland is in the ] article, if you want to know more about specifically the state of the same name, go to article that deals with specifically with that).
:::Contrast our way of doing things with Britannica which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current ] and ]). I would be in favour of such a solution too (over the current solution). From experience though it wouldn't work on WP. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: I don't view the island as the primary topic but I'd strongly consider the Britannica option as a good potential solution.] 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Add it to the vote? (i.e. E: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland in <u>Ireland</u>) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::I would recommend adding that as well as the option suggested by MickMacNee above (an Ireland article in addition to one about the island and one about the state). The benefit of STV is that providing more options (but not too many) can provide a clearer picture of what people are wanting; maybe it ends up that people's #1 picks are all over the place but #2 is one of these options - that might suggest a better consensus than the majority #1 if it's only by a few votes. --] (]) 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Done. Although I don't really see the advantage of MickMacNee's proposal over Ireland/Ireland (state). Sounds like it would be just one more article to fight over to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Done? Done where? What was done? -- ]·] 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::There is a proposed "ballot paper" in ]. I am amending it with suggestions from here. This all leads on from ]. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid the suggestion by MickMacNee's is basically the same as the one you suggested above, and considered a possible solution by both MitH and Masem. I would be in agreement with the "Britannica solution" which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current ] and ]). This Ireland article would then be subject to MickMacNee's suggestion, with a brief outline on each heading with disambiguation headings on each directing readers to the Article which deals with the subject in more detail. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:Sure, I added MickMacNee suggestion to the "ballot paper" in my sandbox anyway. It would do no harm having it in a PRSTV vote. (I didn't mean to sound dismissive of it. Apologies to MickMacNee if I did.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::IMO, such a merger should only take place if Ireland were to be reunited. ] 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Content of either article (island or country), being shifted to the other? is unacceptable. This is one bloke, who'll never consent to it. ] (]) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: If im reading the above right, I strongly oppose the suggestion that there should be a single article on Ireland covering the state and island.. thats deeply offensive and will certainly not lead to consensus. ] (]) 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree with ], a single article on 'Ireland' is a nonsense and not the way to go. There has to be a proper determination which could lead to a consensus. It is about time an Admin took a lead in this. --] (]) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::I recommend re-reading MickMacNee's suggestion again (however, this is not an endorsement, just that it seems a valid option to consider in a STV poll). That is, while an article on Ireland will be a mashup of the island and the state and likely older countries that have been on the island (eg ]), there will still have to be subarticles on the island proper and the 26-county state proper; it's not an attempt to merge these two. --] (]) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: Thats not how i read it although like i said i wasnt sure. I liked the idea mentioned yesterday or the other day about having a basic article covering everything about Ireland like is done with ] and then a further article for the Island / State. But from the above conversation it sounded to me like an attempt to have a single article for both the island / state without sub articles being the main articles for the country / island. These options are going to have to be very well worded to avoid any misunderstanding. ] (]) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Well, there ''is'' the option to have a single ] article, merging the island and state. I'm not so sure how much support ''that'' has, but I think it's fair to add it to the STV poll. That should give 6 options, which I think covered nearly every viewpoint stated here. --] (]) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}} The merger proposal is different again from MickMacNee's proposal. It's based on how i.e. they don't have an "island" article, their "Ireland" article is ostensibly about the state but deals with all of the stuff that is in our "island" article. The equivalent for us is to merge ] into ] then move ] to ]. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::I like this ''proposed article'' (assuming we'll be keeping the country & island articles). Afterall, the ] article would be a precedent for it. ] (]) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have before me a 9 volume set called "A New History of Ireland". The first volume is "Prehistoric and Early Ireland", edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, and there is no ambiguity about Ireland. All 9 volumes deal with the concept of Ireland the island. But to note, in Volume 9 (the most useful one), where a list of offices holders, office holders of the Republic hold office in "Ireland" and ones in Northern Ireland in "Northern Ireland". Whatever change happens in this process, I hope there will be general agreement that before the break-off of most of the island from the United Kingdom, Ireland is not ambiguous, and that no-one will argue for absurdities like ]; but it is true to say that probably in most minds, the concepts of Ireland and the state of Ireland are more merged into each other than they are separate. It's just unfortunate that merging the two is so unoperable on[REDACTED] because[REDACTED] is so large and can easily accomodate both separately. ] (<small>]</small>) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yep, it's too bad that all the island counties didn't support ''independence'' from the UK. Misplaced Pages could've done without the year-after-year disputes. ] (]) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears obvious that editors who were ] apart, have reached or are reaching a ] on the "Britannica/] solution." While no editor gets all they want, we all get to have an agreement which stays firmly within the framwork of Wiki. To continue now with a Poll which no editor really wants, flies in the face of the consensus staring stright at us. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:Consensus?
:* "...a single article on 'Ireland' is a nonsense and not the way to go." - De Unionis
:* "...such a merger should only take place if Ireland were to be reunited." - Asarlaí
:* "...strongly oppose the suggestion..." - BritishWatcher
:* "I'm not so sure how much support that has, but I think it's fair to add it to the STV poll." - Masem
:Let's stick it in as an option for a STV vote. If it's is consensus then it will "win" hands down. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 08:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:: This seems like a fair enough solution and I would give my endorsement to it also it appears some consensus is begining to form on this issue. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and if we have consensus here can we not just take the next step and implement it instead of stalling and the whole affair becoming bogged down gain with endless arguments going nowhere. <strong>]</strong>] 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Im not sure people are clear on what this so called consensus is even on. Theres the ] way on wikipedia, where theres a general article about the area along with links to the main article about the country. I could support that idea with a general article about Ireland with links to Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Island articles.
::: However the "Britannica solution" if that is what some people are supporting is totally unacceptable and no consensus on this method will be formed. It is not acceptable to have just a single article on the Island/country, just the idea of it is offensive. ] (]) 11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: While editors are using terms like ''offensive'' to describe a possible solution we are at a total impass. This kind of ] is extremly unhelpful. Out of curiousity what is offensive about it? <strong>]</strong>] 11:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: I wanted to be clear about my thoughts on this matter and by some other comments above its clear there is no consensus on the "Britannica solution". Its offensive because the Republic of Ireland can not claim ownership over the whole island and its history. The ROI is not the only country on the island of Ireland there for why should they be combined. ] (]) 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::: I find it ironic that an editor who is a firm supporter of the imposition of the term British Isles onto Ireland can be offened by a solution because their unionist/loyalist POV, suppose you just have to laugh at the hypocrisy. <strong>]</strong>] 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::: The ] is a geographical term just like ]. Plenty of people do not like Europe here, it doesnt mean we are not part of Europe and can simply opt out of it. Having an article on the British isles does not prevent an article on the island of Ireland or the country, if it did then ofcourse that would be unacceptable. The Republic of Ireland does not include the whole of the island of Ireland, so i do not see how the "island" information can be combined with the sovereign state. In the case of ] which is both a country and a continent its acceptable to have a single article, but Ireland is divided so the island of Ireland cant be combined with just one state. ] (]) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Notwithstanding the above, Ireland the state has possession of 85% of the land of the island, and all of the seas around the island. Therefore Northern Ireland is actually inside Ireland the state and island. It is rather difficult for some to grasp/accept these precisions, and a consideration that would indeed justify the "one Ireland" article. ] ] 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first reasonable solution which does not go out side our policies, and a typical reaction by some editors. If a load of editors came on here to support this, all talk of a poll would go out the window. I'm not happy with it all, but the editors who want seperate article get them. What is wrong with the ] article? I find myself in agreement with editors with which I'm polls apart on most issues to me that's progress! --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::BigDunc, consensus isn't formed by insisting that there is consensus. Of the few editors that have offered and opinion, more have expressed a dislike for the "Britannica solution" that have said they are in favour of it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Where did I say consensus was achieved on this? Of the editors that expressed a dislike one is a new editor with 24 edits and a very strong POV that is currently blocked and suspicions of a sock have been muted about this editor too. But AGF their opinion is still noted. <strong>]</strong>] 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid "consensus isn't formed by insisting that there is consensus." In this discussion that is all I've had from one group of editors, saying they have a consensus but not one can show me were this discussion took place! --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:"" --] (]) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid, slow down man, we will get this sorted in the end! However, I dont see any clear concensus - maybe a straw poll would help. regards {{unsigned|Vintagekits}}

This "Brittanica" solution is '''only''' an option to be considered in a poll. I can tell from past discussion that it's not necessarily popular or editors' first choice, but it is a valid one to consider particularly in light of a STV-type poll. It should not be considered the target solution that everyone needs to agree on, just that it is one possible solution. --] (]) 13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:The proposal is brilliant. ] (]) 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vin, nothing wrong with a straw poll, but it seems some have only a poll in mind! Like I said, if there is a swing in numbers, we will see back tracking in addition to the digging in of heels that we are seeing. If twenty editors came here supporting it, I'll still be opposed to ], .--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:While I agree that if there was consensus to come to a common solution among all, that would definitely be preferable to polling. However, my judgement here is that there is an inseparable divide between at least two of the opinions given (and not 90/10-like split, we're talking 50/50), and the fact that this has existed since the start of the project means it is not going to go away anytime soon with a magical solution.
:Which is why, as a moderator, I strongly back the polling effort over attempts to discuss the issue in circles over and over again. --] (]) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, we're going nowhere. We've been here for six months. Where's another eight years in the archives of ]. The status quo is all we have but the dissenting voices are right, the status quo is not consensus. So even as someone who supports the status quo, let's take a vote on the options (the development of which, at least, has been a positive outcome of the past six months) and bind ourselves to whatever result there may be. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity, my proposed option is not a simple merger of ROI/Ireland. That strikes me as wholly violating the NPOV by conflating the island with the state, and remember, Brittanica is probably just as concerned with saving paper as being neutral, so the comparison with what they do is weak. Sensible amounts of duplication does not harm us. The heart of the dispute is ambiguity, so none of the three proposed new articles of Ireland, Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) will be a Primary Topic of Ireland per se, that description will be wholly dependant on context. But for completeness, a simple merger should be included in the vote if we are going to be using STV. ] (]) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:The "Britannica solution" is a "simple" merger. I put the "MickMacNee" solution on the ballot paper, but I don't really understand it. If we have a ] article (as well as a seperate ] article), what would the new article at ] be about? How would it be differet form out current ] article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::I reckon the proposed article would be like the ] article. There's the China articles & also the ] & ] articles. ] (]) 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Is that not what we have now? We have an ] article (like ]) and there also the ] article (like ])? What would the third Ireland article be about? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: At the moment the current ] is about the island. The suggestion seems to be that instead of that article just being about the island it becomes a general overview of everything like the island/ history / ROI/NI etc then sub articles about the Island, country, and Northern Ireland. It does seem like that option is simply going to create even more duplication, keeping the island where it is would be the easiest solution (although the country article still would need renaming) ] (]) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: I will suggest the best course of action is that if this particular proposal is chosen, that we will want to spend some discussion to describe the bounds of it to keep duplication to a minimum after the vote. Think of it like the intersection in a ], though, for purposes of the poll - it should describe elements of the island and the country (and it's past) that are normally associated with that body of land throughout time. (Again, I make no attempt to endorse this solution, only helping to clarify why I think it should be on the poll). --] (]) 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::"...instead of that article just being about the island it becomes a general overview of everything like the island/ history / ROI/NI..." Eh, but the current article is about those things. From it table of contents: Political geography ... Wildlife ... History ... The Irish Free State, Éire, Ireland ... Northern Ireland ... Culture ... Science ... Sport ... Demographics ... Cities ... Transport ... Energy network ...
:::::What would be differrent about the new article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Well i presume it just wouldnt go into as much detail about things like Geography, wildlife etc which could be moved to its own article but i dont know. Its certainly going to need a detailed explanation if this is put to a vote so we know exactly what we are all voting for. ] (]) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


==Why is there two articles on Ireland?==

Why is there two articles on Ireland? --] (]) 10:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
: Because there is an island called ] and a country called ]. Confusing huh? lol ] (]) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Having lived in England all my life, living in Ireland only four years that sounds crazy. Like most English people, on Ireland I was clueless. I live in Donegal, which is in Northern Ireland in Ulster. When my Mum and Dad said that I nearly died. Now I know there is Northern Ireland and there is Northern Ireland. Confusing? Well not as confusing as there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. They are the same thing! It would have to have been a man to come up with that one. If I want to read an article on Ireland, that is all I should have to look for. There is only one Ireland, and only one article needed. --] (]) 13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
: Does the Republic of Ireland cover all of the island of Ireland? If you have lived in Northern Ireland obviously you know this is not the case there for how can there be a single article on different matters? I live in the ] this country occupies the WHOLE of the island of ] and yet there is still an article on both. Its not our fault the Republic of Ireland chose to name their country that of the Island.
: Its also interesting to see this is ur first contributions here on wikipedia, i see the recent comments about lots of new users arriving to rig the poll is starting to come true. Will the Admins be doing regular Sock checks and banning those people trying to cheat? ] (]) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:: She does live in Northern Ireland this actually shows an ambiquity with the name given to the 6 counties, Donegal is the most northern county in Ireland. For that matter Monaghan has a more northern point than almost half of the 6 counties Down, Armagh and Fermanagh. <strong>]</strong>] 15:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::It is crazy people taking this as anything other than a joke, come on guys. Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland? I live in Northern Ireland, it is in Ireland. I do not live in the United Kingdom now, and I never called it United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The name of the island is Ireland guys. Everyone in the world calls it that so lets stop being silly. I'm just a reader who wanted to get some information on Ireland, and I discovered there was two articles and a silly discussion. All I see is a small group of people playing a game saying there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. Grow up please. --] (]) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::"Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland?" – actually, within the "six-counties", the "twentysix-counties" are never referred to as "Ireland". Whether they be republican/nationalist/unionist/loyalist, it's always referred to as "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic" or "the south". ] 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: Nice bit of ] Asarlaí you speak for the whole six counties do you? <strong>]</strong>] 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::That's just from my own experience. But if you ever go there I ''guarantee'' you'll find that to be the case (not that it makes a difference on Misplaced Pages). ] 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::: If I ever go there, do you know my history, my family history again a sweeping generalisation using YOUR experience and claiming it is the experience of the whole 6 counties. <strong>]</strong>] 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I ''didn't'' claim it was anything more than my own experience. All I'm saying is that, within the "six-counties", ''I've'' never seen/heard the "twentysix-counties" being referred to as "Ireland". It's the same no matter who I've talked to, the papers I've read, the news programmes I've watched, or the radio stations I've listened to. ] 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: Well I have heard it. <strong>]</strong>] 16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::: Even if its NEVER used in Northern Ireland, which we know is simply not true, we can all accept that the BBC and other British organisations rightly or wrongly do use the term Republic of Ireland so its not like this is being made up by a couple of editors here. If this is moving towards a vote by the way are we going to get everyone registered on the members page and ONLy allow those registered to vote incase we do get a flood of new users to swing the result? ] (]) 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::: Oh and two political parties in Northern Ireland use the term ]. Even the SDLP which want a united Ireland uses the term. ] (]) 16:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::And I sometimes call it ''"The South"'', it's neither here nor there. Don't see why BBC should hold any sway one way or the other, which is an arm of the British Government, who refused to recognise Ireland, and carried out an economic war against the fledgling state, so there is a "history" involved. We all know what the name is, and that it is described as a 'republic' in order to distinguish it from the monarchy that it once was. Let's move forward on this. ] ] 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::The BBC call the country . Should that be considered as a title because they use it? If CNN decided they'd call the country "Paddy Land" should we acknowledge that also? The manual of style of the media from a particular country should have no effect on this process.] 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::: And ofcourse theres the fact that Irelands football team is actually called the ] and people come here and lie through their teeth about it never being used and act like its a made up name on wikipedia. Ofcourse it is described as many things Tfz, but CarolDonegal came here saying its NEVER used. What a damn joke, i agree lets move on. ] (]) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The name of the football team is a completely different issue. Both teams on the island wanted to use the name Ireland. FIFA said none could have it and imposed a name on both team. Regarding the republic, it has no connection to the name of the country.] 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::And the football team is the only thing I know called by RoI, and please stop accusing people of telling lies, it's considered disruption. Enough of 'oneupmanship'. ] ] 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: ROI is a term nothing more it has no relevence to the name of the country Ireland. <strong>]</strong>] 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::: But it is a term, that is all im saying (im not making a case for the article being there). I am just saying in respones to
::::::::::::::::"It is crazy people taking this as anything other than a joke, come on guys. Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland?"
::::::::::::::: That there are plenty of sources and examples of Republic of Ireland being used. ] (]) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::''Republic of Ireland'' is not the official name of the state, but it is the ''official description'' of the state. End of story. Let's not debate this yet again. ] 17:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sectioned off this section as not particularly relevant to the one it was started in. ] (]) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Donegal is the most Northern part of Ireland. It's seems like some guys want to say that the most Northern part of Ireland is in the South. That is how silly this is and can only be the product of a man's need to argue. The Ireland article is and should be about Ireland, but some guys from the North say NO, supported by some guys from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, guys leave your out dated politics at the door the world has moved on. --] (]) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:Donegal is the most northern part of ], yes. But your opening statement says Donegal is in ]. Um, no. It's in '''n'''orthern ] - small 'n'. Subtle but important difference. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:: So we need to disambaguate Northern Ireland as it is confusing for the reader. <strong>]</strong>] 13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Maybe they just need to know what state they live in? ]<sup>]</sup> 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: I'm sure they know where they live it appears they are pointing out the need for diambag on the name Northern Ireland. IMO that name is more confusing to the reader than the claim being pushed that Ireland is. <strong>]</strong>] 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: I do not believe we need to worry about this case in order to narrow down what options to vote. Primarily, this is due to the fact that I see no articles that talk about the geographic regions of the 26-county state (in contrast to, say ]); because of that, if a user was seeking info on "northern Ireland" (lower-case n), they would likely first end up on "Northern Ireland"; from there, a dab note or (as done now) a disambiguation page can point to the general article on the 26-county state due to lack of a specific geographic region article. Should that article ever be created, the dab would just have to be updated to refer to that. However, clearly, unlike the present disambiguation between "Ireland" for island and state, "Northern Ireland" has a single most common meaning in English, and that's the state that is part of the UK, so there would be no need to go through this lengthy process again. --] (]) 13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland" has a single most common meaning in English, and that's the state that is part of the UK" {{cn}} Ireland has a single most common meaning in English, and every European contry. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::Because everyone who wants to move the article ] to the page ] seems to want to remove all the important stuff about the island. And says things like "The republic part ''is'' Ireland and the rest is not." Crazy, huh? (only read what OP DonegalCarol wrote, sorry) ~ ].].] 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::P.S. in response to Asarlai ("in the six counties people say Republic of Ireland") Well, outside of football, they practically ''never'' say that because they always say "Down south" or "Free state". ~ ].].] 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::This really doesn't make a difference on Misplaced Pages. But anyway... in newspapers, news programmes, radio stations and common speech, I've only ever heard/seen "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic", "the south" and "the twentysix-counties" being used. If someone said "I'm going to Ireland tomorrow" they'd be met with confused faces. ] 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Certainly. Agreed the 'faces' and lol. ~ ].].] 09:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Vote taking place on "British Isles" terminology ==

A poll is on at the BI-taskforce to see whether a compromise can be reached over the usage of the term "British Isles", at ]. Just incase you're interested. ] (]) 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== Emerging consensus ==
There appears to be an emerging consensus that, <br>
(1) ] be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc. <br>
(2) ], though may be ambigious to some as in 'northern Ireland', keep its current title, <br>
(3) ] refers to to Ireland, the modern state, <br>
(4) ] article refers to the '1949 RoI Act', and <br>
(5) There is only one state in the world named Ireland, therefore disambiguation is unnecessary for 'Ireland state' related titles. <br><br>
Some editors want detailed disambiguation guidelines in advance of any moves, but that will only stop the process moving forward, and details written in advance of a move will not work as they will lead to widespread disruption and Wikilawyering. My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. All wording problems can easily be solved by good faith NPOV editing. The road ahead is clear. ] ] 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

: Umm whilst i agree with most of the above, i think ] should be a redirect to the country article (where ever that goes) rather than another article describing the ROI act. ] (]) 14:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:: I disagree that ROI should be redirected to the country article. <strong>]</strong>] 14:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Then it appears this emerging consensus is no where near consensus yet ] (]) 14:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::This is where the RoI article must connect with, ]. The very reason for this discussion page is for the untenable RoI situation be attended to. By ''"i think ] should be a redirect to the country article (where ever that goes) rather than another article describing the ROI act."'' is fundamentally going against the reason why this page was set up in the first instance. By taking that stance, you are adopting the 'Status Quo' here at Misplaced Pages, which has been deficient thus far. This is why ArbCom will have to come in and make judgment on the true consensus. ] ] 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: Umm im sorry but the status quo is still a possible outcome of this dispute although i find it unlikely that will happen. This is to do with where the article on Ireland the country belongs, no matter where it gets moved to that doesnt mean there is going to be some new article at Republic of Ireland. from previous debates ive seen on this matter ROI would continue to act as a redirect. If Arbcom wanted to come and have a look where we are right now, im sorry but they would not find consensus here yet, even if some seem urgent to declare it. ] (]) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::I defer to the longstanding editors who have edited these articles over the years. ] ]
:I generally agree with Tfz's numbered points above, except that I think that initially, RoI should be kept as a redirect to Ireland (state). Once we complete a cleanup run and change appropriate RoI links to I(s), we can re-point RoI to Republic of Ireland Act. That sound reasonable to anyone else? --] (]) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:In what sense is this 'apparent consensus' emerging? For the life of me, I can't see it. ] (]) 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:: Agreed, several people have said we are close to consensus in the past few days, i must of missed it though because theres still some core disagreements. I dont have a problem with the country article being moved off of Republic of Ireland, however i strongly oppose this idea of having some different article at ]. It is a commonly known term for the country and deserves a redirect to where ever the country article goes, not just short term but always (considering its been at Republic of Ireland on here for years, we suddenly must now not even have it as a redirect??? seems crazy ] (]) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I'd prefer Ireland to be a DAB but if thats where the consensus is going, I would back it. I agree with BritishWatcher that "Republic of Ireland" should be a redirect to the country article rather than another article describing the ROI act. Regards . ] (]) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::Sounds fine, if it's got consensus. Except that ] should redirect to ]. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 18:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Also agree, better than current. ROI could be a dab if it makes things easier --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:: Sounds like a reasonable proposal except, like most others above, I would argue ] should redirect to ] with a dablink to ]. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::(ec) So we leave the reader to think that ROI is the name of the country when it is not and the 1949 RoI Act is just forgotten about. Are we not supposed to inform the reader not just pander to pro british POV. <strong>]</strong>] 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::A DAP page on ROI would avoid any confusion there (it could make it clear that ROI is a description, something everyone agrees on. Equally a note at the top of the new Ireland(state) which says that ROI is the descrription and pipe-links to the 1949 act would work. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::: A redirect would make it more clear instead of a note on the top of the article. <strong>]</strong>] 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::The question is whether, when a person types "Republic of Ireland" into the search bar, do they expect to be brought to an article on the declaration of the state as a republic or do they expect to be brought to an article on the state often called by that name (be it its official name or not)? I expect that, when a person types "United Kingdom" into the search bar, they expect to be brought to an article on that state, not an article on the 1801 Act of Union, despite "United Kingdom" not being the official name of the state. The same applies when a person types United States etc.
::::::::Why make life difficult for our readers for the sake of some pedantic argument? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: Put the DAB onto the article on the act, it is factually correct and it informs the reader which is the purpose of wikipedia. <strong>]</strong>] 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with what Rannpháirtí anaithnid has written above. If the article on the state is moved to a new title, ''Republic of Ireland'' should direct there. ] 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: A new title you make it sound like we just made up a term, it is the correct name of the article and making ROI a redirect just perpetuates the lie that ROI is the name of Ireland it is not and should not redirect to Ireland. You are rewarding ignorance. Jus because someone ignorantly calls Ireland ROI doesn't mean we have to pander to this ignorance with a redirect. <strong>]</strong>] 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's the official description of the state. Nobody is claiming that's the official ''name''. ] 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::: rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid makes a very good point. ] doesn't redirect to ], ] doesn't redirect to ] and ] doesn't redirect to ]. There are many other examples. In each case, these are not official names, but commonly used alternative names, abbreviations or descriptions of sovereign states. Its patently obvious that >99% of our readers would want to read about the state if they type these terms into the text box, they would not primarily want to read about the origin of the term. Can you justify why Republic of Ireland should be different? These sorts of redirects are not "rewarding ignorance" any more than redirecting misspelled terms to the correct article are. I have an idea, lets redirect ] to ]. That would teach those ignorant bastards, eh? ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Its patently obvious that >99% of our readers would want to read about the state if they type these terms into the text box, they would not primarily want to read about the origin of the term." {{cn}} so obvious you'll reference it. This is a fact based discussion? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
: Its a logic based assertion based upon a metric we ''can'' measure - edits. But lets not derail the "emerging consensus" on this issue. I'll happily continue to discuss this ''after'' the ROI article title is free to direct somewhere! ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an emerging consensus that,
(1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc.
(2) Northern Ireland, though may be ambigious to some as in 'northern Ireland', keep its current title,
(3) Ireland (state) refers to to Ireland, the modern state,
(4) Republic of Ireland article refers to the '1949 RoI Act', and
(5) There is only one state in the world named Ireland, therefore disambiguation is unnecessary for 'Ireland state' related titles.

Some editors want detailed disambiguation guidelines in advance of any moves, but that will only stop the process moving forward, and details written in advance of a move will not work as they will lead to widespread disruption and Wikilawyering. My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. All wording problems can easily be solved by good faith NPOV editing. The road ahead is clear. Tfz 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::I '''oppose''' any attempt to move forward with TfZ's proposal because it appears to be an attempt to purge Misplaced Pages of the perfectly-legitimate and normal (in the real world) term "Republic of Ireland". I refer to this statement: ''My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'.'' This is not compromise.
::I oppose the move because it fails to deal with the fundamental issue of referring to the 26-county state in other articles, and also the titles of articles relating to the 26-county state and or the whole island.
::I also oppose any move which involves dealing or voting separately with issues in the absence of an overall agreement about ALL issues.
:: The best compromise solution remains that put forward by the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force.
:: ] (]) 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Hi Mooretwin, can you simplify your understanding of the "Ireland Disambiguation Task Force" proposal/s. Thanks. ] ] 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Proposed new article for ] ===

This is a proposed article for the with a disambiguation hatnote on the top for ] . Misplaced Pages is directed at the readers, and this article which is completely referenced has not been challenged by anyone on either ], or ]. It directly relates to the subject of the Article title. That we are again moving forward is to be welcomed. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:When I said an "Emerging consensus" I did not say there was one. I based in on the comments of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, MITH, GoodDay, Deacon of Pndapetzim and MickMacNee's suggestion in addition to BigDunc, Tfz and CarolDonegal. There are Editors here who are normally polls apart so was I not correct in saying "Emerging consensus"? {{unsigned|Domer48}}

:I think it's coment would be better integrated into ]. (Also, I hope you don't mind me .) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid we are talking about the RoI, why would we section off comments on the RoI? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:: I think it is quite remarkable that there hasn't (yet) been a rejection of this ''beyond'' the ROI redirect issue. In reality, this is not a sticking point for ultimate goal, which is to find a home for the articles on the island and the state that is agreeable. I would urge editors not to get too hung up on this one issue. If we can get anything near consensus for the other 4 statements we should be very, very close to a resolution. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::: If fact, I would even go as far to propose that statement (4) be scratched from the proposal and left for discussion later since it has essentially no impact of where the article for the state would go. Domer was very keen to discuss this on the article page and - the reason why we couldn't - was because it would require moving the article that was already there. Once that is resolved by moving the current contents, the contents of ROI can be discussed without restriction. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::::What's wrong with the content at ]? That article is alright, it's just the name that needs to be changed. ] (]) 20:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Which is my I sectioned Domer48's proposal off. We can take the two parts separately. If there is consensus to move ] -> ] then, after that move, we can discuss whether ] should become something else (be that a redirect to ] or a new article about the term). But for now, if there is consensus on everything else, let's solve one bit of our problem at least and have it redirect to ] - at least for the period immediately after the move. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lets park it for now! --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Outdent''' - I see no emerging consensus of the kind described. I see a consensus about holding a Single Transferrable Vote on Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I support that, completely and unreservedly. I do not favour any process which tries to winnow without STV. And I oppose any attempt to take parts separately. 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see no emerging consensus. And I'm wondering why Domer's proposed article is ok now, but when I put it in mainspace a week or so ok it first got prod'ed then deleted as a POV fork. What's changed in the meantime...? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

:*GoodDay, Bastun, Evertype, could you please state your detailed objections to the "emerging consensus" in less than 100 words each? Thank you. ] ] 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
::The current article named ], is about the independant country called Ireland (the one that broke away from the UK). All I've ever requested (concerning that article) is to change the title to '''Ireland (state)''', I've never requested change or gutting out the content. ] (]) 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
:::GoodDay, I can't see any fundamental divergence in what you write, to what many of the other editors who want to move forward, have been writing. ] ] 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::Where, here? OK, but, I'm not limiting myself to 100 words. I ''did'' see an "emerging consensus" toward a ''particular type'' of '''inclusive''' poll, with Single Transferable Voting. I supported this, and have also assented to Mooretwin's and Scoláire's comments that we do need to acknowledge that some sort of use of the description '''Republic of Ireland''' ought to be used and usable within articles for disambiguation where warranted. I saw a lot of consensus about STV polling. Then I come back and see the rug pulled out from under that, with this new "emerging consensus" where inclusive options (which allow everyone to express their genuine preferences even though it is clear some of those will not end up as chosen options) are being abandoned. This jumps the gun. I object to it. I think Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll should be run, and if some RoI needs to be added to satisfy Mooretwin and Scoláire (who have a point) then that should be considered. (163 words) -- ]·] 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Oh. Now there is more stuff below. Tfz, was there any point in my writing my 163 words? -- ]·] 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes there is a point, and very enlightening. There seems to be a need by some editors to use the string 'Republic of Ireland' as a "proper name", instead of its intended use by the Irish government, who created the term to be used as a "proper adjective". I cannot see any problem with 'republic of Ireland' for disambiguation in certain limited circumstances as you propose, but to allow "Republic of Ireland" onto any sentence where there "might" be disambiguation "needs" in the "subjective opinion" of an editor, is a licence for mammoth and unimaginable disruption at Misplaced Pages. All one has to do is visit ] in order to get a tiny glimpse of that scenario. ] ] 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that Tfz, --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

==What will we do next? - Poll==

OK, I think this is probably going over old ground, but, since Tzf has closed his proposal above, let's summarise what came out of that discussion with a poll. I think we were close to something in that so let's just take a head count. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 08:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:Rannpháirtí anaithnid we are moving away from ] and moving towards a solution based on ]. What we need to do now IMO is have a to gauge the current consensus. Editors opposed should be asked to outline their objections? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 09:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::That's the point of this poll (or "straw poll" if you prefer). It looked like we were close to/had consensus above but that it got lost in the details of discussion. A head count will show if there was a consensus or not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 09:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

::Not actually closed, but a step forward on the path to resolving the issue/s. The poll below is a bit elaborate, and a simple straw poll as suggested by Domer would be easier to handle at this stage. ] ] 13:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::: Agree --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: Yeah I agree below seems a bit elaborate for a straw poll. <strong>]</strong>] 13:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::How could it be simplified? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Question A: What will we do next about the page moves? ===

* '''Option A1:''' Place a proposal for the "]/]/] solution" on a subpage of ] and poll on it (if passed, ] will redirect to ] at least for the period immediately after the move - we can discuss what to do with ] again afterwards)
* '''Option A2:''' Hold a vote by STV (Single transferable vote) of the kind ] on a sub-page of ] (per ], the <u>exact</u> details of this still need to be written up)
* '''Option A3:''' Either Option A1 or Option A2 - either will do!
* '''Option A4:''' Neither Option A1 nor Option A2 (please leave a comment when !voting)

==== Poll on Question A ====

* '''Option A3''' --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 08:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option A2''' ] 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option A2''' ] (]) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option A2''' ] (]) 16:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option A2''' -- ]·] 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option A3''' ]<font color="black">e</font>] 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option A2''' -] 20:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Option A4''' No redirect of ROI to Ireland. <strong>]</strong>] 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option A4''' A redirect of RoI to state article is quite wrong, and why this page exists. ] ] 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

==== Comments on Question A ====
I think its fairest to have a vote with ''all'' the options available. ] 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:I agree with Asarlaí, and I think that Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll is quite comprehensive. -- ]·] 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::I'm a tad confused (my brain is over-loaded). Which of these options would best match my previous comments? ] (]) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
BugDunc, I don't get what you mean by "No redirect of ROI to Ireland" (probably obvious, but I don't get it). Can you explain? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Question B: What will we do next about the use of terms in article? ===

* '''Option B1:''' Place a proposal like "]" at ], advertised it in the usual places and poll on it
* '''Option B2:''' Something other than Option B1 (please leave a comment when !voting)

==== Poll on Question B ====

* '''Option B1''' --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 08:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option B1''' ] 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option B1''' ] (]) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option B1''' ] (]) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option B1''' -- ]·] 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* '''Option B2''' ] ] 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

==== Comments on Question B ====
I'm a tad confused (having a brain fart). Which of these options match my previous comments? ] (]) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

==Poll suggested by Domer48==

We’ve had three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the ] solution. It has been broken down by Tfz above into five points, reduced to four leaving discussion on the RoI till we have gained consensus on the other four first. Those who have expressed a positive view for this solution include:
#We could list the editors who have commented in a positive and supportive way to the suggestion, or
#Use the support or oppose heading and ask them to sign.
# We could then do the same with the editors who oppose this solution.


I agree that Ireland, the island, pre-dates the establishment of either state on the island and therefore the article "Ireland" should refer to the island. The use of parenthetical disambiguation is a fair, accurate and unbiased solution.
It would look something like this: '''Editors can add/remove/or move their names accordingly'''
Any reference to "The Republic of Ireland Act 1948" in relation to the name of the country is irrelevant, as the act made no reference to the name of the country and the name is clearly defined in the Irish constitution of 1937 and no subsequent amendment has changed the name. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part2


It should also be noted that since the 2009 poll on this topic, Misplaced Pages has introduced auto suggest in the search field on the homepage. When a user enters the word “Ireland” into the search field the country is not in the list of suggested articles, as it is currently identified by a reference that is obscure to most. ] (]) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (]) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
'''Support:'''
* MickMacNee,
*<strike>rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, </strike> <sup>(Edit: Domer48, please do not !vote on my behalf --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 21:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC))</sup>
* Musicinthehouse,
*GoodDay,
*Deacon of Pndapetzim,
*Domer48,
* BigDunc,
* CarolDonegal,
* Tfz,
* --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


:{{tpq|As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Misplaced Pages page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country.}} Why? '''Most''' countries aren't at their official name on Misplaced Pages. Very, very few 'state' articles actually reside at the official name of the state in question - see, e.g.: ], ], ], ], and ] - all doing well at page titles other than the official. "Ireland" is also the name of the island, which doesn't have a natural disambiguator. "Republic of Ireland" is a natural disambiguator for the state and is its official description. This has worked perfectly well both before and after the ]. If you read through ''that'', and the archives of this page, and can still then bring something new to the table, then of course it can be discussed - ] can change. But if your argument is solely that this isn't the name of the state, that won't serve to change anything. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks for pointing me towards the historical discussion on this topic, it made for fascinating, yet disappointing, reading. I would counter that the current naming isn't working, as requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods.
::What surprised me (and offends others) is the simple fact that the name of the country is Ireland and that Misplaced Pages does not reflect that (internationally recognised) fact. Very few other countries actually bother to define their name in their constitution, yet Ireland clearly has, in both Irish and English.
::For 85 years, this self-determination has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country, hence many Irish people balk at the forced imposition of the name "Republic Of Ireland". This delegitimisation is further perpetuated across Misplaced Pages as users link to a description rather than a country ( I know ] does have a guideline to use <nowiki>]</nowiki> when linking, but in practice that is unlikely to happen as many casual editors will just copy the title of the Ireland article).
::All of the states you mentioned above have been afforded the respect of redirecting from their official title to their respective articles.
::The argument that using "Republic Of Ireland" as the name is weak, as it is akin to using "Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts" in place of Coca-Cola to distinguish it from Pepsi, as both are official descriptions.
::In my opinion, parenthetical disambiguation of "Ireland (country)" is a fair, balanced, inoffensive and factual disambiguator for the page. There is precedence in the disambiguation between ] and ], even with there already being a natural disambiguation as the official title of the US state is "State Of Georgia". ] (]) 13:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
:::The most persuasive of your arguments is the one regarding the search field in the opening comment, but here you undermine your own position by posting an absurd and unsubstantiated rant in your third paragraph that reveals more about your own prejudices and bias than other people's and writing logically incoherent nonsense in the fifth and sixth paragraphs. ] and ] are disambiguated and ] covers both. No article is at ]. ] and ] are disambiguated and ] covers both. No article is at ]. ] is a state. ] (]) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
::::The clearest examples of attempts to undermine the constitutional name of Ireland are by the British government in both the Eire Act 1938<ref>{{cite web | title=Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1938 | url=https://vlex.co.uk/vid/eire-confirmation-of-agreements-808327717}}</ref> and the Ireland Act 1949<ref>{{cite web | title=Ireland Act 1949 | url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/41/enacted}}</ref>, neither of which acknowledged the name of Ireland. These choices were politically motivated as there was still a degree of animosity between the newly independent Ireland and the former empire at the time. This position has subsequently changed<ref>{{cite web | title=Country names: The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use | url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/country-names/country-names-the-permanent-committee-on-geographical-names-for-british-official-use}}</ref>.
::::@] As for the Coke/Pespi example, just like your "Island in the Atlantic Ocean" example, it is absurd and was made to highlight how irrespective of how official a description is, it is not the name.
::::That aside, it would be good to discuss the negative impact the page title has on the discoverability/usability in the search field. ] (]) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
The work that editors and moderators do on Misplaced Pages is fantastic and I appreciate it very much.
I'm sure many are jaded by this topic rearing it's head so frequently and are reluctant to entertain a change to the status quo.
Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus.
Building a consensus is obviously the only way a change can be made here.
May I ask, who determines that consensus has changed? ] (]) 21:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
:The community. As you can see in the archives here the subject has come up many times. No new information seems to be raised in the conversations and they always (to date) end with the same consensus. There was even an attempt on this very page in the section immediately above, where the proposal was completely shot down. Now ] but it also doesn't have to change. I have zero issues with people re-opening the conversation and trying to alter or establish a new consensus, just as long as it isn't continuously happening. ] ] 21:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
::I did see that it was recently discussed but the topic had been closed so was unable to reply within context.
::As a relatively inexperienced contributor to Misplaced Pages (historically only making small additions), this WikiProject is quite an obscure corner of the platform that many users do not know about, but is a great way to discuss and gain agreement for changes.
::Coupled with how intimidating it can be to new editors when an admin or moderator dismisses their suggestion, it's no surprise as to why the topic of fixing the title of ] is destined to always be classified as ].
::Might I suggest that, given the frequency of contributions on this matter, a topic be left permanently open for discussion? ] (]) 17:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Cashew.wheel}} You seem to be under a number of misconceptions here. 1) There is no position of "moderator" on Misplaced Pages, so {{tq|requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods}}, for example, makes no sense. 2) There is a position of administrator, but nobody has taken any admin action in the discussions here or at ] or ]. All that has happened is that other users like yourself have put forward their views, countering your arguments – not dismissing them. 3) Discussions like the three above end up as WP:SNOW because a great majority of those who take the trouble to ] are opposed to any move (8–1 in the most recent move request), not because "new editors" are "intimidated" against !voting. 4) The topic ''is'' left permanently open for discussion; otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it now. An individual ''thread'' is closed when there has been no additions for a reasonable amount of time, as was the case in the three threads above. Not a misapprehension as such, but I completely disagree that the name "Ireland" {{tq|has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country}}, that ROI is imposed by force (by whom?), that many Irish people "balk" at it, or indeed that Irish people in general find it offensive in the real world. For this reason, as well as all the reasons given above, I am opposed to any change in the status quo. ] (]) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
::::@] Thanks for clarifying about editors, admins and topics. I am new to discussing edits and as such am unfamiliar with the terminology, process and etiquette (I didn't even know to sign my first comment). I was not accusing anyone of intimidation, just noting that it can be intimidating for new editors to engage on a talk page with more seasoned editors who reply with terms, conventions, history and even markdown that they are unfamiliar with and may be put off from returning to contribute more.
::::I have found the editor community welcoming and fair when engaging in constructive, albeit repetitive, discussion.
::::The only case that I know of where the term "Republic Of Ireland" was actually forced on an Irish entity, is the 1953 ruling by FIFA on the name of teams fielded by the Football Association Of Ireland.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.fai.ie/domestic/news/fai-history-chapter-6-%E2%80%93-fifa-rules-on-irish-issue| title=FIFA rules on Irish issue}}</ref>. Other none-forced cases referred to the refusal of the British government to acknowledge the official name of the country until the late 1990s, the downstream impact that had on reporting by the media and thus the spread of the use of the incorrect name of the country.
::::We can agree to disagree as to the degree as to proportion of the population that might take offence, it is subjective after all. ] (]) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
*The country's official description is "Republic of Ireland" and as someone in England I'd not even known the country's actual (short) name was just "Ireland" until I came across this debate in 2017. Many countries have official descriptions that aren't in common usage like ] and aren't really ambiguous so we use the official (short) name namely ]. ''']''' (]) 17:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==Opposition to name change==
'''Oppose:'''
{{atop|result=Discussion ended: closed to allow eventual archiving. ] (]) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)}}
*<s>Asarlaí, </s> <small>(please do not vote on my behalf ] 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC))</small>
Forgive me but its time to finally call this out. But it seems from looking at the history of the wiki contributors who object to having the above change, 99% of them come from a British nationalist persuasion judging by many of their edit history and interactions, and are completely unimpartial in this regard.
* BritishWatcher,
* De Unionist,
* Mooretwin,


I question the validity and feasbility of WikiProject Ireland now as it has clearly been hijacked by British nationalist and Northern Ireland unionist/loyalist editors projecting their political agenda and bias on an encyclopedia, as evidenced by the proposed requested move hiding behind "consensus" (between themselves) and "previous discussions" (agreed amongst themselves) they have become the gate-keepers now of this project and topic. Many Irish editors have simply given up on this project and can't be bothered dealing with this project anymore. This has clearly escaped the attention of the Arbritration Committee who should intervene in this issue and that of the move discussion on 'Ireland'. It seems like some radical Irish republicans and British nationalists have something in common by opposing the usage of the term Ireland also in that regard, leaving all the reasonable people scratching their heads. ] (]) 11:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:All is forgiven. ooOOOh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Go on then, don't be a tease - give us more juicy facts / examples of hijacking. ] (]) 12:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::At least this question of its hijacking is out in the open now. Hardly a conspiracy theory when its so obvious to outside observers who will read and dig through the history and discussion on all this. I think everyone who wants to look can look at editors' like yourself and this project's contribution and talk history, same with the Ireland page, can judge for themselves and agree. At least on[REDACTED] people can see everything if they want to search. :) ] (]) 12:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Ooooh I do love a good title that has to wrap, even on a desktop. Succinctness is overrated. ] (]) 12:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::::You're welcome. ] (]) 12:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::<small>The prevtious heading for this section was {{tq|Hijacking of the WikiIreland Project by British Nationalists + Opposition to name-change to 'Ireland' (actual name of country) from 'Republic of Ireland' (description)}}. I changed it to {{tq|Opposition to name change}} on 9 December. ] (]) 11:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)</small>
:While I welcome support for a change of consensus on the name of Ireland, the aggressive, confrontational tone is not going to achieve anything. Also by not being a user, you lack accountability & credibility. ] (]) 12:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::I have had an account for many years, but it was inactive for a while and cannot remember my log in details and username anyway so I stopped using it (I am not a sockpuppet a CheckUser will confirm that), me being a user or IP shouldn't matter anyway as the point still stands, the tone may be considered aggressive and confrontational by some, but when bad faith and political bias interfere with encyclopedic work and its impartiality then assertiveness is required to address it, I am sure any reasonable and impartial reader here would agree with that statement. ] (]) 12:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Oooohh I '''do''' love a good stream-of-consciousness paragraph. Punctuation is overrated. ] (]) 13:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:Ooooh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Let's have the evidence shall we? ] ] 13:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::The proof is in the pudding as they say, you and the editors with British nationalist sentiments who are all over the WikiIreland project and oppose Ireland having an article being referred to by its actual name is amongst the evidence. Why don't you rename the France article "the Republic of France' or Spain 'the Kingdom of Spain' while you are at it? ] (]) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm not a British nationalist, I fully expect a United Ireland in my lifetime, something I never thought I'd see but the UK shot itself in the foot on that one. Do not make such attacks on other editors. My only objection to having the country at Ireland is that that is where the island is and the island is the primary topic. We prefer not to have clumsy brackets in topic names if it can be avoided such as Ireland (state). Thankfully the Irish government and legislation gave us a very handy disambiguation alternative. (Plus almost every single country on Misplaced Pages is not at the country's actual name, not the United States of America, not the Commonwealth of Australia, not the State of Israel, not the Republic of Korea and not even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Not a single person on here denies that the name of the country is Ireland. And as I've clearly stated many times, consensus can change but nothing new has been brought to the table to result in enough of a discussion to alter that consensus. It's hardly anyone here's fault that when they formed the country they choose the same name as the island it was on despite not being all of the island. ] ] 15:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Additionally stop accusing other editors of being nationalist editors and gatekeepers, if you continue with that you will be blocked for personal attacks. ] ] 15:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Feels a bit disingenuous to compare - I believe some of those list acceptable alternatives and none of those were imposed on them by former colonial overlords (who still occupy territory!) despite decades of trying to stop that former overlord using the incorrect name.
::::Republic of Ireland isn't an alternative name, it's a description of the state. As far as I knew Misplaced Pages generally uses accurate names instead of descriptions of things - is that not for the text in an article? ] (]) 03:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::I am forced to repeat: "End the tryanny inflicted on the ]! Liberate the ]! Stop the oppression of the ]! Won't someone please think of the ]?" (Ok, in fairness, someone actually ''did'' end the tyranny inflicted on the ] pretty soon after I originally wrote the preceding sentence - but for several years that ''was'' the official name of the state!) So, er, ''no'', actually... Misplaced Pages uses ], and, in situations where there is ambiguity (as there is between the name of the state and the name of the Ireland), we use a disambiguator. ''Most'' 'state' articles aren't at the official name of the state. <small>Why do I have to keep pointing this out...</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 10:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
::::::Probably because it continues to be an issue. As mentioned previously, in my opinion parenthetical disambiguation of the article, while retaining the MOS ] in it's current form, would probably prevent the issue being brought up so frequently. ] (]) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::Um Republic of Ireland as the official description of the state was suggested and signed into legislation in Ireland by the government of Ireland in 1948, not by some colonial overlord. ] ] 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
* What are you proposing here? Are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland" and the island to "Ireland (island)" or are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland (country)"? As has already been discussed "Republic of Ireland" is the common name and the island serves as broad-concept article. Personally I'm from England and until I came across this about 5 years ago knew very little about Ireland, I wouldn't even have known which country Belfast and Dublin were the capital of, if someone asked me where either of them were I would have answered "Ireland". And I also had no awareness the country's official name is just "Ireland" I'd always heard it called "Republic of Ireland". ''']''' (]) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
*:Genuinely hilarious - unless I'm misinterpreting this you're literally arguing this from a British point of view. Why should the Irish put up with an incorrect name imposed on them by Brits and have that defended by Brits saying "oh it's just what we knew" ] (]) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
*Just looking from {{oldid|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration|1101164007|the top of this page}}, I see support for the status quo coming from myself ({{U|Scolaire}}), {{U|SeoR}}, {{U|Laurel Lodged}}, {{U|Guliolopez}}, {{U|Nicknack009}}, {{U|FDW777}} and {{U|ww2censor}}, all of whom (correct me if I'm wrong) are Irish, and none of whom are of a "British nationalist persuasion" as can be seen from their edit history and interactions. What intrigues ''me'' is the number of anon editors and ] who have opened discussions on this page and {{oldid|Talk:Republic of Ireland|1097040363|Talk:Republic of Ireland}} in the last few months saying they are to find that the title is being foisted on good faith Misplaced Pages users by a cabal of British editors! After ten years of nobody making any comment. I'll say no more. ] (]) 17:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
** How interesting! The last time I checked, I had a Dutch passport. But I confess, I live in the Free Fenian Republic of Ireland on the ]. {{smiley}} <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 18:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
::And I've never revealed my nationality or anything. In all my years in the Ireland related space I've been called a Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Republican, British, Irish, IRA sympathiser, UDA whore, and every single possible variant combined with as many expletives as you'd like. I really should make a list as I'm honestly not sure which side of the divide I've been accused of being on the most by people interested in maintaining a divide and continuing to foster divisions. ] ] 10:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Ha! My "I know who/what you really are!" Misplaced Pages accusations CV includes an ETA member, a muslim, Sepp Blatter, Ian Duncan Smith and, based on an article I created, . It's almost always those busting a gut to push a POV that make such charges, ironically enough. ] (]) 15:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Oh yeah I've been accused of many other things (usually by people who are blocked very shortly after.) I was just restricting to the Ireland related articles :) ] ] 19:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==Why not a disambiguation page?==
'''I’m not sure weather they support or oppose this solution?'''
{{atop|result=Discussion ended: closed to allow eventual archiving. ] (]) 16:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)}}
* Bastun
I read through some of the recent discussion on renaming this page and the argument generally seemed to be "there can be only one article named Ireland and so that is the island" and that's the way it's always been so that's the way it should always be.
* R.T.G
* Redking7
*<s>Snowded</s>
* Rockpocket
* Evertype


There seems to be some inconsistency here with respect to how ] is treated though. That goes to a disambiguation page that suggests Britain could commonly either refer to the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Why would Ireland likewise not default to a disambiguation page that says Ireland most often refers to the island or the Republic of Ireland? ] (]) 05:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
'''''This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look'''.
''--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:I don't know what you are talking about. I would like to see progress made on Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I really would. I don't believe we will ever get "consensus" by argument. This has gone on too long. I believe that a vote where people can rank what they CAN support and what they CANNOT support in Single Transferable Voting will lead to a workable solution. -- ]·] 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


:I see no need for consistency between these articles and ]. Ireland defaulting to a disambiguation page was one of the options in the ] in 2009. It did not reach consensus. There is no reason to believe that consensus has changed since then. It's fine to have the British dab page at Britain and the Irish dab page at ]. 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Funny thing is Evertype, consensus is starting to form, and not by argument but by agreement. Now I not two editors did not read my post before they said I was voting on their behalf, maybe if they did they could remove their notes to indicate that they have now read it and were mistaking? I thought this comment on the end ''This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look" coupled with my comments above would have been enough. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
::As someone else said above, "Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus." ] (]) 20:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
''
:::Nobody said that it is a "recently established consensus." It has been the consensus since 2002, and that consensus was clearly shown in the 2009 poll. The fact that there has been no major debate since 2012 is itself evidence that consensus has not changed. You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed. ] (]) 10:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::::"You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed."
::::Thank you for agreeing that I've made a reasonable suggestion. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree, just as I disagree with your conclusion that the supposed lack of support for my proposal on this page is evidence that consensus hasn't changed. I would argue that there was no "rush of support" for the same reason there was no rush of opposition, because this discussion page is difficult to find and has low visibility. Even as someone who was interested in addressing the topic, it took me awhile to find it, and only because I actually cared about posting in the designated area.
::::If you want to limit discussion to people who have already made up their minds, and are already aware that this page exists, then that's an easy but questionable way to maintain consensus for the status quo. If, on the other hand, you want to get a sense of what the broader Misplaced Pages community thinks about this, you'd be better served revisiting this topic on the actual discussion page for ] and/or ]. ] (]) 04:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::You are actually unusual in raising the issue on this page. Mostly, discussions about naming ''are'' started at Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland. This is followed by somebody pointing out that discussions must take place on this page (by order of the ], not "people who have already made up their minds"), at which point either the discussion moves here, or it lapses. Either way, the outcome is the same: people are made aware of the discussion but do not turn turn up in numbers to overturn consensus. Thus the consensus remains. ] (]) 12:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


::Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there. While I personally prefer to refer to the state as Ireland where possible, and think it could actually be done so more extensively on Misplaced Pages without confusion than is the case at present, it is an official description of the state in Irish law. According to ], where there is a natural disambiguation, that is typically the best term to use, as '''Republic of Ireland''' qualifies as that. ] (]) 11:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
==] vs ]==
:::"Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there."
We have two completely different proposals operating at the minute. One based on ] and the other based on ]. It’s a very clear choice IMHO as to which one I’d prefer.--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 20:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:::How do you figure? There are only 11 entries on the disambiguation page for ] and 25 on ]. In both instances, there are only two main disambiguation links - to the island and the country. ] (]) 20:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
:After all these years, I'm not seeing any consensus for changing the title of this page ''or'' for making it into a disambiguation page. The ], are down to just the bones. ] (]) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
:For all the talk that "consensus can change" ], it's just a fallacy. Those against change hide behind it as an excuse while those in favour of change grow disillusioned by the vague arbitrary goalposts being set. I would support a disambiguation page and the use of parental disambiguation. ] (]) 18:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
::"Consensus can change" is not a fallacy. See for instance ] on whether to make "China" a redirect to China (disambiguation) instead of to "Chinese civilization" (the then current setting), and compare it with ] which decided that "China" should be the article for the People's Republic of China. In that case there was a clear and obvious change in consensus, which led to the desired change. It wasn't a case of "twenty people over the last five years have expressed dissatisfaction so we'll have to change it." Nothing similar has happened on these pages. Also, please ]. Neither I nor anybody else is hiding behind anything as an excuse. We're replying to your arguments, that's all. And what in the world are these "vague arbitrary goalposts"? The reasons for keeping the status quo are concrete and clearly (and consistently) stated. ] (]) 12:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:::Further to my point above about where this discussion should take place to truly determine current consensus, I note that those 2006 and 2011 discussions on ] that you mentioned took place on the actual talk page for Chinese civilization (which was the default redirect at the time). ] (]) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
::::An earlier ArbCom ruling has stated that this discussion on moving Ireland, renaming the articles on Ireland and Republic of Ireland, must take place here. Unless that ArbCom ruling is withdrawn or rescinded then here is the only place any such discussion may take place. I will agree though that that does have a measure of potentially limiting involvement in the discussion which could be an issue, however anytime anyone brings up this topic elsewhere they do get redirected here and there are headers on the relevant pages directing to this one. ] ] 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Well, I'm glad you agree that does potentially limit involvement in the discussion. While ] mentions that most people initially raise the issue on the ] or ] talk page, he also says that the discussion almost immediately gets rerouted here. That probably has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion.
:::::However long ago that ArbCom decision may have been made, it might be time to revisit it, if only temporarily. if there's an actual desire to take the temperature on current consensus, then I think it's quite frankly unlikely to happen as long as the discussion is limited to this page.
:::::I do appreciate, whatever other differences of opinion we may have on the matter, that you both acknowledge my suggestions here have not been unreasonable. ] (]) 06:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::I don't accept that rerouting the discussion "has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion". If there was a substantial number of people wanting change (i.e. enough people to overturn the consensus), they would see the request at the Ireland or ROI talk page, see that the discussion was moved, and follow the link to this page. Compare {{oldid|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration|1143899445|the current version}} of this page with ], which I picked at random out of 34 archive pages(!), and see the amount of discussion and the number of people that contributed over a period of just three days. That simply wouldn't happen today.
::::::I would have no problem with somebody asking ArbCom to change its ruling, and allow naming discussions to be held at the article talk pages. ] (]) 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
::::Since {{U|TempDog123}} raises the same point twice, I'll answer it twice. More often than not, requests to rename the pages ''are'' initially made on Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland, so people are aware of the request but do not turn up in numbers to overturn the consensus. To reiterate, consensus can change, but in this case it just hasn't. Sorry. ] (]) 13:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Also it's worth nothing that most requests to move the page are by drive by accounts with no real skin in the game, just new accounts or editors that fly by after being outraged at it, post some angry messages, and then leave with no actual desire to engage in actual real conversation or debate on the topic beyond a couple of hours. When this is the instigation and participation, it's no wonder that there isn't any further progress on anything. ] ] 13:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Credibility bot ==
If we're lucky, folks? The consensus & polling will come out 'the same'. ] (]) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:From where I'm standing, the consensus seems to be a poll where someone else places your vote. ] (]) 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to ]. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at ] and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at ]. Thanks! ] (]) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Would you like to explain what you mean? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
: I think they are talking about GoodDay with his what will I vote comment above. <strong>]</strong>] 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:I see two polls. Both polling on the same thing. Domer48, have you contacted the editors you added to Support/Oppose in "your" poll? There is a natural concern when someone speaks on behalf of someone else that you may not always get it right. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


== ARCA ==
Rannpháirtí anaithnid did you even read what I wrote above? ''"This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look."'' ''We could list the editors who have commented in a positive and supportive way to the suggestion, or
Use the support or oppose heading and ask them to sign. We could then do the same with the editors who oppose this solution.'' Now do you want to remove your comment "Edit: Domer48, please do not !vote on my behalf --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá)" to indicate that you have read it? --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:You wrote "Editors can add/remove/or move their names accordingly". Please do not !vote on my behalf in future. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small> 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


During a Straw poll editors can "add/remove/or move their names accordingly" Now I've made this nice and bold '''This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look''' since you still must not have read it. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC) There is a discussion at ] about changing the notices to say discussion about the Ireland articles should take place on this project's talk page rather that the project page its self. I'm not suggesting any other changes are needed or that the articles should be moved. ''']''' (]) 22:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
:Now that such discussions are allowed to take place on the ] & the ] talkpages? Maybe this WikiProject could be retired. Since there's already ] in existance. ] (]) 06:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
::Inevitably, some lover of drama or good-faith new editor will propose a move. Seeing as that will effect, at minimum, the Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) pages, it makes sense to have a "neutral" central place to have the discussion. There is also a '''lot''' of material here that people will want to link in any ensuing discussion. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
:::"Retired" doesn't mean deleted. Linking to here in any future discussion may be useful, but moving the discussion to here would be directly counter to the ArbCom decision. ] (]) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
:::PS: See ] for links. ] (]) 13:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:42, 3 December 2023

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIreland
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
WikiProject iconNorthern Ireland
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related
WikiProject iconUnionism in Ireland (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Unionism in Ireland, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Unionism in IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Unionism in IrelandUnionism in Ireland
WikiProject iconIrish republicanism
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34


This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Shortcut

Move: Republic of Ireland → Ireland (country)

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 an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Misplaced Pages page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country.

I agree that Ireland, the island, pre-dates the establishment of either state on the island and therefore the article "Ireland" should refer to the island. The use of parenthetical disambiguation is a fair, accurate and unbiased solution. Any reference to "The Republic of Ireland Act 1948" in relation to the name of the country is irrelevant, as the act made no reference to the name of the country and the name is clearly defined in the Irish constitution of 1937 and no subsequent amendment has changed the name. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html#part2

It should also be noted that since the 2009 poll on this topic, Misplaced Pages has introduced auto suggest in the search field on the homepage. When a user enters the word “Ireland” into the search field the country is not in the list of suggested articles, as it is currently identified by a reference that is obscure to most. Cashew.wheel (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashew.wheel (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

As an Irish citizen, I was shocked and surprised to find that the title of the Misplaced Pages page for my country does not bear the actual name of my country. Why? Most countries aren't at their official name on Misplaced Pages. Very, very few 'state' articles actually reside at the official name of the state in question - see, e.g.: State of Libya, French Republic, United Mexican States, State of the City of the Vatican, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - all doing well at page titles other than the official. "Ireland" is also the name of the island, which doesn't have a natural disambiguator. "Republic of Ireland" is a natural disambiguator for the state and is its official description. This has worked perfectly well both before and after the huge debate of 2009. If you read through that, and the archives of this page, and can still then bring something new to the table, then of course it can be discussed - consensus can change. But if your argument is solely that this isn't the name of the state, that won't serve to change anything. Bastun 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me towards the historical discussion on this topic, it made for fascinating, yet disappointing, reading. I would counter that the current naming isn't working, as requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods.
What surprised me (and offends others) is the simple fact that the name of the country is Ireland and that Misplaced Pages does not reflect that (internationally recognised) fact. Very few other countries actually bother to define their name in their constitution, yet Ireland clearly has, in both Irish and English.
For 85 years, this self-determination has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country, hence many Irish people balk at the forced imposition of the name "Republic Of Ireland". This delegitimisation is further perpetuated across Misplaced Pages as users link to a description rather than a country ( I know WP:IMOS does have a guideline to use ] when linking, but in practice that is unlikely to happen as many casual editors will just copy the title of the Ireland article).
All of the states you mentioned above have been afforded the respect of redirecting from their official title to their respective articles.
The argument that using "Republic Of Ireland" as the name is weak, as it is akin to using "Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts" in place of Coca-Cola to distinguish it from Pepsi, as both are official descriptions.
In my opinion, parenthetical disambiguation of "Ireland (country)" is a fair, balanced, inoffensive and factual disambiguator for the page. There is precedence in the disambiguation between Georgia_(country) and Georgia_(U.S._state), even with there already being a natural disambiguation as the official title of the US state is "State Of Georgia". Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The most persuasive of your arguments is the one regarding the search field in the opening comment, but here you undermine your own position by posting an absurd and unsubstantiated rant in your third paragraph that reveals more about your own prejudices and bias than other people's and writing logically incoherent nonsense in the fifth and sixth paragraphs. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola are disambiguated and cola covers both. No article is at Sparkling Soft Drink with Vegetable Extracts. Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are disambiguated and Ireland covers both. No article is at Island in the Atlantic Ocean to the west of Great Britain. Georgia is a state. DrKay (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The clearest examples of attempts to undermine the constitutional name of Ireland are by the British government in both the Eire Act 1938 and the Ireland Act 1949, neither of which acknowledged the name of Ireland. These choices were politically motivated as there was still a degree of animosity between the newly independent Ireland and the former empire at the time. This position has subsequently changed.
@DrKay As for the Coke/Pespi example, just like your "Island in the Atlantic Ocean" example, it is absurd and was made to highlight how irrespective of how official a description is, it is not the name.
That aside, it would be good to discuss the negative impact the page title has on the discoverability/usability in the search field. Cashew.wheel (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. "Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act, 1938".
  2. "Ireland Act 1949".
  3. "Country names: The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British official use".

The work that editors and moderators do on Misplaced Pages is fantastic and I appreciate it very much. I'm sure many are jaded by this topic rearing it's head so frequently and are reluctant to entertain a change to the status quo. Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus. Building a consensus is obviously the only way a change can be made here. May I ask, who determines that consensus has changed? Cashew.wheel (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The community. As you can see in the archives here the subject has come up many times. No new information seems to be raised in the conversations and they always (to date) end with the same consensus. There was even an attempt on this very page in the section immediately above, where the proposal was completely shot down. Now WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE but it also doesn't have to change. I have zero issues with people re-opening the conversation and trying to alter or establish a new consensus, just as long as it isn't continuously happening. Canterbury Tail talk 21:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I did see that it was recently discussed but the topic had been closed so was unable to reply within context.
As a relatively inexperienced contributor to Misplaced Pages (historically only making small additions), this WikiProject is quite an obscure corner of the platform that many users do not know about, but is a great way to discuss and gain agreement for changes.
Coupled with how intimidating it can be to new editors when an admin or moderator dismisses their suggestion, it's no surprise as to why the topic of fixing the title of Ireland is destined to always be classified as WP:SNOW.
Might I suggest that, given the frequency of contributions on this matter, a topic be left permanently open for discussion? Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cashew.wheel: You seem to be under a number of misconceptions here. 1) There is no position of "moderator" on Misplaced Pages, so requests for change are made so frequently, much to the chagrin of mods, for example, makes no sense. 2) There is a position of administrator, but nobody has taken any admin action in the discussions here or at Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland. All that has happened is that other users like yourself have put forward their views, countering your arguments – not dismissing them. 3) Discussions like the three above end up as WP:SNOW because a great majority of those who take the trouble to !vote are opposed to any move (8–1 in the most recent move request), not because "new editors" are "intimidated" against !voting. 4) The topic is left permanently open for discussion; otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it now. An individual thread is closed when there has been no additions for a reasonable amount of time, as was the case in the three threads above. Not a misapprehension as such, but I completely disagree that the name "Ireland" has been undermined by anti-Irish elements in an attempt to delegitimise the country, that ROI is imposed by force (by whom?), that many Irish people "balk" at it, or indeed that Irish people in general find it offensive in the real world. For this reason, as well as all the reasons given above, I am opposed to any change in the status quo. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Scolaire Thanks for clarifying about editors, admins and topics. I am new to discussing edits and as such am unfamiliar with the terminology, process and etiquette (I didn't even know to sign my first comment). I was not accusing anyone of intimidation, just noting that it can be intimidating for new editors to engage on a talk page with more seasoned editors who reply with terms, conventions, history and even markdown that they are unfamiliar with and may be put off from returning to contribute more.
I have found the editor community welcoming and fair when engaging in constructive, albeit repetitive, discussion.
The only case that I know of where the term "Republic Of Ireland" was actually forced on an Irish entity, is the 1953 ruling by FIFA on the name of teams fielded by the Football Association Of Ireland.. Other none-forced cases referred to the refusal of the British government to acknowledge the official name of the country until the late 1990s, the downstream impact that had on reporting by the media and thus the spread of the use of the incorrect name of the country.
We can agree to disagree as to the degree as to proportion of the population that might take offence, it is subjective after all. Cashew.wheel (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. "FIFA rules on Irish issue".
  • The country's official description is "Republic of Ireland" and as someone in England I'd not even known the country's actual (short) name was just "Ireland" until I came across this debate in 2017. Many countries have official descriptions that aren't in common usage like Republic of France and aren't really ambiguous so we use the official (short) name namely France. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2022 (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.

Opposition to name change

Discussion ended: closed to allow eventual archiving. Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (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.

Forgive me but its time to finally call this out. But it seems from looking at the history of the wiki contributors who object to having the above change, 99% of them come from a British nationalist persuasion judging by many of their edit history and interactions, and are completely unimpartial in this regard.

I question the validity and feasbility of WikiProject Ireland now as it has clearly been hijacked by British nationalist and Northern Ireland unionist/loyalist editors projecting their political agenda and bias on an encyclopedia, as evidenced by the proposed requested move hiding behind "consensus" (between themselves) and "previous discussions" (agreed amongst themselves) they have become the gate-keepers now of this project and topic. Many Irish editors have simply given up on this project and can't be bothered dealing with this project anymore. This has clearly escaped the attention of the Arbritration Committee who should intervene in this issue and that of the move discussion on 'Ireland'. It seems like some radical Irish republicans and British nationalists have something in common by opposing the usage of the term Ireland also in that regard, leaving all the reasonable people scratching their heads. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

All is forgiven. ooOOOh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Go on then, don't be a tease - give us more juicy facts / examples of hijacking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
At least this question of its hijacking is out in the open now. Hardly a conspiracy theory when its so obvious to outside observers who will read and dig through the history and discussion on all this. I think everyone who wants to look can look at editors' like yourself and this project's contribution and talk history, same with the Ireland page, can judge for themselves and agree. At least on[REDACTED] people can see everything if they want to search. :) 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Ooooh I do love a good title that has to wrap, even on a desktop. Succinctness is overrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The prevtious heading for this section was Hijacking of the WikiIreland Project by British Nationalists + Opposition to name-change to 'Ireland' (actual name of country) from 'Republic of Ireland' (description). I changed it to Opposition to name change on 9 December. Scolaire (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
While I welcome support for a change of consensus on the name of Ireland, the aggressive, confrontational tone is not going to achieve anything. Also by not being a user, you lack accountability & credibility. Cashew.wheel (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have had an account for many years, but it was inactive for a while and cannot remember my log in details and username anyway so I stopped using it (I am not a sockpuppet a CheckUser will confirm that), me being a user or IP shouldn't matter anyway as the point still stands, the tone may be considered aggressive and confrontational by some, but when bad faith and political bias interfere with encyclopedic work and its impartiality then assertiveness is required to address it, I am sure any reasonable and impartial reader here would agree with that statement. 51.37.118.212 (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Oooohh I do love a good stream-of-consciousness paragraph. Punctuation is overrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Ooooh I do love a good conspiracy theory. Let's have the evidence shall we? Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The proof is in the pudding as they say, you and the editors with British nationalist sentiments who are all over the WikiIreland project and oppose Ireland having an article being referred to by its actual name is amongst the evidence. Why don't you rename the France article "the Republic of France' or Spain 'the Kingdom of Spain' while you are at it? 51.37.118.212 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not a British nationalist, I fully expect a United Ireland in my lifetime, something I never thought I'd see but the UK shot itself in the foot on that one. Do not make such attacks on other editors. My only objection to having the country at Ireland is that that is where the island is and the island is the primary topic. We prefer not to have clumsy brackets in topic names if it can be avoided such as Ireland (state). Thankfully the Irish government and legislation gave us a very handy disambiguation alternative. (Plus almost every single country on Misplaced Pages is not at the country's actual name, not the United States of America, not the Commonwealth of Australia, not the State of Israel, not the Republic of Korea and not even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Not a single person on here denies that the name of the country is Ireland. And as I've clearly stated many times, consensus can change but nothing new has been brought to the table to result in enough of a discussion to alter that consensus. It's hardly anyone here's fault that when they formed the country they choose the same name as the island it was on despite not being all of the island. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Additionally stop accusing other editors of being nationalist editors and gatekeepers, if you continue with that you will be blocked for personal attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Feels a bit disingenuous to compare - I believe some of those list acceptable alternatives and none of those were imposed on them by former colonial overlords (who still occupy territory!) despite decades of trying to stop that former overlord using the incorrect name.
Republic of Ireland isn't an alternative name, it's a description of the state. As far as I knew Misplaced Pages generally uses accurate names instead of descriptions of things - is that not for the text in an article? Saoirserose (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I am forced to repeat: "End the tryanny inflicted on the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya! Liberate the French Republic! Stop the oppression of the United Mexican States! Won't someone please think of the State of the City of the Vatican?" (Ok, in fairness, someone actually did end the tyranny inflicted on the State of Libya pretty soon after I originally wrote the preceding sentence - but for several years that was the official name of the state!) So, er, no, actually... Misplaced Pages uses common names, and, in situations where there is ambiguity (as there is between the name of the state and the name of the Ireland), we use a disambiguator. Most 'state' articles aren't at the official name of the state. Why do I have to keep pointing this out... Bastun 10:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Probably because it continues to be an issue. As mentioned previously, in my opinion parenthetical disambiguation of the article, while retaining the MOS WP:IRE-IRL in it's current form, would probably prevent the issue being brought up so frequently. Cashew.wheel (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Um Republic of Ireland as the official description of the state was suggested and signed into legislation in Ireland by the government of Ireland in 1948, not by some colonial overlord. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • What are you proposing here? Are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland" and the island to "Ireland (island)" or are you proposing to move the country to "Ireland (country)"? As has already been discussed "Republic of Ireland" is the common name and the island serves as broad-concept article. Personally I'm from England and until I came across this about 5 years ago knew very little about Ireland, I wouldn't even have known which country Belfast and Dublin were the capital of, if someone asked me where either of them were I would have answered "Ireland". And I also had no awareness the country's official name is just "Ireland" I'd always heard it called "Republic of Ireland". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    Genuinely hilarious - unless I'm misinterpreting this you're literally arguing this from a British point of view. Why should the Irish put up with an incorrect name imposed on them by Brits and have that defended by Brits saying "oh it's just what we knew" Saoirserose (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Just looking from the top of this page, I see support for the status quo coming from myself (Scolaire), SeoR, Laurel Lodged, Guliolopez, Nicknack009, FDW777 and ww2censor, all of whom (correct me if I'm wrong) are Irish, and none of whom are of a "British nationalist persuasion" as can be seen from their edit history and interactions. What intrigues me is the number of anon editors and SPAs who have opened discussions on this page and Talk:Republic of Ireland in the last few months saying they are shocked, shocked to find that the title is being foisted on good faith Misplaced Pages users by a cabal of British editors! After ten years of nobody making any comment. I'll say no more. Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
And I've never revealed my nationality or anything. In all my years in the Ireland related space I've been called a Protestant, Catholic, Unionist, Republican, British, Irish, IRA sympathiser, UDA whore, and every single possible variant combined with as many expletives as you'd like. I really should make a list as I'm honestly not sure which side of the divide I've been accused of being on the most by people interested in maintaining a divide and continuing to foster divisions. Canterbury Tail talk 10:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Ha! My "I know who/what you really are!" Misplaced Pages accusations CV includes an ETA member, a muslim, Sepp Blatter, Ian Duncan Smith and, based on an article I created, God. It's almost always those busting a gut to push a POV that make such charges, ironically enough. Valenciano (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah I've been accused of many other things (usually by people who are blocked very shortly after.) I was just restricting to the Ireland related articles :) Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 30 July 2022 (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.

Why not a disambiguation page?

Discussion ended: closed to allow eventual archiving. Scolaire (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2023 (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.

I read through some of the recent discussion on renaming this page and the argument generally seemed to be "there can be only one article named Ireland and so that is the island" and that's the way it's always been so that's the way it should always be.

There seems to be some inconsistency here with respect to how Britain is treated though. That goes to a disambiguation page that suggests Britain could commonly either refer to the island of Great Britain or the United Kingdom. Why would Ireland likewise not default to a disambiguation page that says Ireland most often refers to the island or the Republic of Ireland? TempDog123 (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I see no need for consistency between these articles and Britain. Ireland defaulting to a disambiguation page was one of the options in the poll on Ireland article names in 2009. It did not reach consensus. There is no reason to believe that consensus has changed since then. It's fine to have the British dab page at Britain and the Irish dab page at Ireland (disambiguation). 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As someone else said above, "Thirteen years have past since the last major debate over the naming of the articles, yet the issue keeps coming up as many see it as factually incorrect and it can no longer be dismissed as recently established consensus." TempDog123 (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Nobody said that it is a "recently established consensus." It has been the consensus since 2002, and that consensus was clearly shown in the 2009 poll. The fact that there has been no major debate since 2012 is itself evidence that consensus has not changed. You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed. Scolaire (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"You have made a reasonable suggestion here – though one with which I disagree – but there was no rush of support for it, just as there was no rush of support for any of the other recent proposals, from which I conclude that consensus still hasn't changed."
Thank you for agreeing that I've made a reasonable suggestion. Reasonable minds can certainly disagree, just as I disagree with your conclusion that the supposed lack of support for my proposal on this page is evidence that consensus hasn't changed. I would argue that there was no "rush of support" for the same reason there was no rush of opposition, because this discussion page is difficult to find and has low visibility. Even as someone who was interested in addressing the topic, it took me awhile to find it, and only because I actually cared about posting in the designated area.
If you want to limit discussion to people who have already made up their minds, and are already aware that this page exists, then that's an easy but questionable way to maintain consensus for the status quo. If, on the other hand, you want to get a sense of what the broader Misplaced Pages community thinks about this, you'd be better served revisiting this topic on the actual discussion page for Ireland and/or Republic of Ireland. TempDog123 (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
You are actually unusual in raising the issue on this page. Mostly, discussions about naming are started at Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland. This is followed by somebody pointing out that discussions must take place on this page (by order of the Arbitration Committee, not "people who have already made up their minds"), at which point either the discussion moves here, or it lapses. Either way, the outcome is the same: people are made aware of the discussion but do not turn turn up in numbers to overturn consensus. Thus the consensus remains. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there. While I personally prefer to refer to the state as Ireland where possible, and think it could actually be done so more extensively on Misplaced Pages without confusion than is the case at present, it is an official description of the state in Irish law. According to WP:NCDAB, where there is a natural disambiguation, that is typically the best term to use, as Republic of Ireland qualifies as that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
"Disambiguation pages are usually not necessary where there are only two alternate pages, as in the case with Ireland; in the case of Britain, there's a decent list there."
How do you figure? There are only 11 entries on the disambiguation page for Britain and 25 on Ireland (disambiguation). In both instances, there are only two main disambiguation links - to the island and the country. TempDog123 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
After all these years, I'm not seeing any consensus for changing the title of this page or for making it into a disambiguation page. The poor old horse's remains, are down to just the bones. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
For all the talk that "consensus can change" WP:CCC, it's just a fallacy. Those against change hide behind it as an excuse while those in favour of change grow disillusioned by the vague arbitrary goalposts being set. I would support a disambiguation page and the use of parental disambiguation. Cashew.wheel (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
"Consensus can change" is not a fallacy. See for instance this 2006 discussion on whether to make "China" a redirect to China (disambiguation) instead of to "Chinese civilization" (the then current setting), and compare it with this 2011 discussion which decided that "China" should be the article for the People's Republic of China. In that case there was a clear and obvious change in consensus, which led to the desired change. It wasn't a case of "twenty people over the last five years have expressed dissatisfaction so we'll have to change it." Nothing similar has happened on these pages. Also, please assume good faith. Neither I nor anybody else is hiding behind anything as an excuse. We're replying to your arguments, that's all. And what in the world are these "vague arbitrary goalposts"? The reasons for keeping the status quo are concrete and clearly (and consistently) stated. Scolaire (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Further to my point above about where this discussion should take place to truly determine current consensus, I note that those 2006 and 2011 discussions on China that you mentioned took place on the actual talk page for Chinese civilization (which was the default redirect at the time). TempDog123 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
An earlier ArbCom ruling has stated that this discussion on moving Ireland, renaming the articles on Ireland and Republic of Ireland, must take place here. Unless that ArbCom ruling is withdrawn or rescinded then here is the only place any such discussion may take place. I will agree though that that does have a measure of potentially limiting involvement in the discussion which could be an issue, however anytime anyone brings up this topic elsewhere they do get redirected here and there are headers on the relevant pages directing to this one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you agree that does potentially limit involvement in the discussion. While Scolaire mentions that most people initially raise the issue on the Ireland or Republic of Ireland talk page, he also says that the discussion almost immediately gets rerouted here. That probably has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion.
However long ago that ArbCom decision may have been made, it might be time to revisit it, if only temporarily. if there's an actual desire to take the temperature on current consensus, then I think it's quite frankly unlikely to happen as long as the discussion is limited to this page.
I do appreciate, whatever other differences of opinion we may have on the matter, that you both acknowledge my suggestions here have not been unreasonable. TempDog123 (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't accept that rerouting the discussion "has the same net effect of limiting both visibility and participation in the discussion". If there was a substantial number of people wanting change (i.e. enough people to overturn the consensus), they would see the request at the Ireland or ROI talk page, see that the discussion was moved, and follow the link to this page. Compare the current version of this page with this one, which I picked at random out of 34 archive pages(!), and see the amount of discussion and the number of people that contributed over a period of just three days. That simply wouldn't happen today.
I would have no problem with somebody asking ArbCom to change its ruling, and allow naming discussions to be held at the article talk pages. Scolaire (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Since TempDog123 raises the same point twice, I'll answer it twice. More often than not, requests to rename the pages are initially made on Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland, so people are aware of the request but do not turn up in numbers to overturn the consensus. To reiterate, consensus can change, but in this case it just hasn't. Sorry. Scolaire (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Also it's worth nothing that most requests to move the page are by drive by accounts with no real skin in the game, just new accounts or editors that fly by after being outraged at it, post some angry messages, and then leave with no actual desire to engage in actual real conversation or debate on the topic beyond a couple of hours. When this is the instigation and participation, it's no wonder that there isn't any further progress on anything. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 9 March 2023 (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.

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Misplaced Pages:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

ARCA

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Ireland article names about changing the notices to say discussion about the Ireland articles should take place on this project's talk page rather that the project page its self. I'm not suggesting any other changes are needed or that the articles should be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Now that such discussions are allowed to take place on the island & the country talkpages? Maybe this WikiProject could be retired. Since there's already WP:IRELAND in existance. GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Inevitably, some lover of drama or good-faith new editor will propose a move. Seeing as that will effect, at minimum, the Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Ireland (disambiguation) pages, it makes sense to have a "neutral" central place to have the discussion. There is also a lot of material here that people will want to link in any ensuing discussion. Bastun 10:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
"Retired" doesn't mean deleted. Linking to here in any future discussion may be useful, but moving the discussion to here would be directly counter to the ArbCom decision. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
PS: See here for links. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration: Difference between revisions Add topic