Talk:Celtic Phoenix

NPOV
Just a light-touch reminder on the WP:NPOV guidelines - as they relate to ensuring that any "positions" on a subject are fair and represented without bias. I note this as I had made some additions to highlight the existence of "other" opinions on the Celtic Phoenix concept. My additions were (IMO) quite "light" relative to WP:UNDUE guidelines. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but my additions were removed, and replaced with "balancing" statements from government sources instead. I have put these back. Other thoughts are obviously welcome, but I wouldn't have thought we should ONLY be representing a government "line" on this subject - as per the related guideline on relying on single or limited sources. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just reverted a whole series of blatantly editorialised/PoV edits, added by an anon(?) IP on 21st May. Not even a semblance of balance, very editorialised editing. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am calling on anyone to help with expanding the Celtic Phoenix article.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"Ireland-stub" added to article to show the article needs to be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 May 2015‎ (UTC)

More information had been added onto the article. Please do not remove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs)


 * If you add accurate, sourced information in a WP:NPOV manner, it is far less likely to be removed. Unfortunately, most of your edits tend to be hyperbolic and read like a statement from a government party's HQ... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Specific examples:
 * Why did you change the heading from "Growth" to "Strong economic growth"?
 * Why not just leave the reported fall in unemployment figures? Why editorialise with your unsourced interpretation that "There was a large fall in the unemployment rate in 2014, as this was due to strong growth in job creation." Might not this also have been due at least in part to, oh, I don't know, immigration?
 * The problem with your "property price increases" section has already been outlined.
 * Dylan, nobody is trying to silence or censor you, but you seem to completely miss the point of WP:NPOV and other aspects of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I added factual information (with references to sources and websites) to it onto the article to help expand the page. I used good research to get more information and facts about the recovering economy. Please do not remove the information, OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs)


 * And once again, you don't address any of the concerns raised. That means you'll be reverted. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi DylanMcKaneWiki. As Batsun and other editors (myself included) have pointed-out quite a few times in recent weeks, Wikipedia editors are supposed to avoid overly flowery language and adjectives. The facts are supposed to speak for themselves. Overuse of adjectives and the addition of commentary is not appropriate under the WP:NPOV guidelines, and is not what the project is about. Persistently ignoring consensus will not only impact you (as you have already seen), but will ultimately impact the "merge" discussion. (An article which has significant problems relative to project norms is considerably more likely to be deleted or merged - than one which stands-up on its own merits). You really should try and address the points that other editors are raising: Properly engaging is the only way forward - anything else is not helping the case. Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Information added detailing property price growth outpacing Dublin property prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.4.116 (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dylan - please remember to log in when editing. There's even a tickbox - it says "Keep me logged in for 30 days".  Secondly - just as in the article itself - you do not need a new section heading for each thought you want to share.  Keep discussions together.  All of your recent additions here could go under this 'NPOV' heading.  Lastly, do not simply copy-and-paste from your sources.  That's a copyright violation and will be reverted. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

LEAVE MY ARTICLE ALONE PLEASE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 15:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

An Fhionnuisce Ceilteach
Removing this - it seems to be original research. There are three Google hits for the term, total. One is to this very article, two are from a thread on Reddit where someone aptly points out that "I'm no expert but isn't Fionnuisce completely wrong here? The 'Phoenix' in Phoenix Park in Dublin is just an anglicisation of Fionn Uisce and bears no relation to the bird that rose from the ashes." Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actual Irish translation?
What is the actual Irish translation for Celtic Phoenix? --DylanMcKaneWiki (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works DylanMcKaneWiki. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we only use titles and labels that are already in common-use. This is exactly the type of concern that other editors have raised about this article. That the phrase (in Irish and in English) is used in this article in a way that is perhaps ahead of itself relative to the neologism and OR guidelines. In short however: Unless someone else is using the term as Gaeilge/in Irish elsewhere, then it is not our place to invent/translate/create a label! Guliolopez (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see where there's an article on ga.wikipedia to parallel it. I was able to find An Tíogar Ceilteach to parallel Celtic Tiger, but the economic history coverage is thin there (yet more robust than my Gaelic skills :) ). —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge or delete?
Right now, this article is pretty much one person's slant on the so-called "Celtic Phoenix" (a rarely used term) that's better covered elsewhere (with additions from that the OP tried to remove). As the term is a neologism and as the Irish economic recovery-of-sorts is better covered elsewhere, I would be happy for either my deletion proposal or 's merge proposal to go ahead. Unfortunately, and his various IP's seem unwilling to engage on any talk page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:COATRACK. AfD is a better process than PROD with some of these things that have possible controversy. It's better to merge to large articles to let the quality improve, and then only split out if there is extensive coverage that necessitates a split for readability (see WP:LENGTH). WP:NEO means that the word can be covered in a single line as part of discussion of the recovery. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not want you to delete this page as I created it and people have come along to add more information on. The page still needs more information as it is a new page. I would like if you contribute to the page by helping to expand it rather than delete it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.198.251 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * But, as was pointed out above, does it needs its own page, if the topic can be covered thoroughly in another article? —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Celtic Phoenix page covers more information on Irish economic growth than any other page or article. There are more references as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you're finally engaging on a Talk page,, rather than just ignoring everyone else. That's progress.  Can you please sign your posts using four tildes ( ~ ?  And make sure to log in when you're editing - are you also the IPs 93.107.198.251 and‎ 109.79.25.190?


 * "I do not want you to delete this page as I created it" - that's called WP:OWN and isn't allowed, for obvious reasons. The question you have to ask is, is the topic "Celtic Phoenix" (which is itself a rarely used neologism, also not allowed!) covered better by itself; or would Ireland's economic recovery be better covered as a section within another article (such as the proposed Economy of the Republic of Ireland.  The latter has dozens of contributors, rather than the handful of people who've stumbled across this article (some of whom, it has to be said, followed you here because of your troublesome editing history (did you not see the multiple requests to not do any more page moves?)).


 * Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative work. You have to work with other editors, rather than just reverting things like merge templates; and you need to work within Wikipedia's policies. Regards, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Celtic Phoenix has more information !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You do understand the word WP:MERGE? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I put a lot of hard work into creating this page. Please respect my work !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom and WP:COATRACK. If this article is to be about the term (as should strictly be the case), then it would just be a few lines (mentioning that a few media outlets used the term a few times), and hence best dealt-with in a relevant "parent" article. If this article is to be about "economic recovery 2014/2015", then it should be relabelled, and even then probably best dealt with in a parent/existing article. (Otherwise, as has been seen and noted, it would fast become a COATRACK for semi-related content (for example the "Irish Water" content that was added. Granted it's been removed since, but had very little to do with either of the possible titular subjects). Guliolopez (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is not that old. Please give it more time to allow for the article to be expanded, which you could help by doing so. I know that there is already information on other articles, but this article give more information and references to the Celtic Phoenix. You can help contribute to the article by helping to add more information to it. Please do not consider deleting or merging this article again. Let us all agree that the article only needs to be expanded, not deleted or merged. Agreed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Here's how this works, Dylan. 1. You stop removing the merge template, or you get reported on the Administrators' Noticeboard and probably pick up a block. 2. Editors discuss the merge proposal, their arguments are judged on their merits, and a consensus emerges. The consensus gets implemented.  Regards, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Dylan. Apologies if it seems like your work isn't being respected or appreciated - obviously that is not the intent. In fact, project norms expect that all editors involved in a discussion should be coming with the best of intentions for the project. As Bastun notes however, while it may be difficult to be completely dispassionate about these things, we need to be careful that we don't assume "ownership" of an article, subject or section. (It isn't what the project is about). While the editor who affected the redirect in the first place may have jumped the gun a bit, Bastun's short summary of the situation is correct: If an editor has made an improvement suggestion, the community would normally have a discussion about it, and agree what would be best for the project. In this case - in honesty - it may not be a question of "waiting for the article to improve" before deciding what might be best to do. (Not least because the discuss is around whether this topic should in fact become a sub-topic summary at all). I hope you've read and recognised some of the arguments that other editors are making here, but in essence there is a concern that we've taken a relatively new term (that is in limited use), and associated a number of semi-related events to the topic. What I might suggest is that you let the other contributors know why you think the article should remain as a "standalone". We might start by talking about the topic we're trying to cover - are we trying to cover THE TERM "Celtic Phoenix", or are we trying to cover THE CONCEPT the term describes. (If it's the latter, and we're talking about a period of growth in 2014 and early 2015, then - personally - I think it's a small sub-set that could be covered in the broader economy article. At least until there's more water under the bridge and we can even tell if there's even a concept/event to be covered.....) What do you think? Guliolopez (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I object. Just leave the article alone and move on. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Warning issued for continued removal of the merge template. If you revert again, you will be reported and blocked. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Dylan. RE "I object". This isn't a court of law. And, even if it was, the advocate who declares "I object" is expected to cite the reason for their objection. Please help us understand the reason for your "objection". Other than "I just don't like it". The issues that other editors have with this article are that:
 * The term is a new one, that isn't really in common use (outside the article itself). Wikipedia has some guidelines on this type of article. See WP:NEO. Can you explain why you don't think this is the case or should be applied?
 * Even if the term wasn't a new one, and was in common use, the article doesn't actually deal with the term - it talks about "economic growth in late 2014, early 2015", and therefore is a bit of "coat rack" for loosely related content. Per WP:COATRACK. Can you explain why you don't think this guideline applies?
 * This type content is already dealt-with (as it is argued it should be) in the existing article(s) about the Economy of Ireland. And this sub-page takes a potentially "slanted" view of the sub-topic. Per WP:CFORK. Do you not think this guideline applies? If so, why?
 * And finally, an issue which I personally think to be the case, we've taken a very short-term snapshot of time, and held-it-up as if it's done/dusted and can be viewed as historical or concrete fact. There is another guideline which suggests that we shouldn't create articles until the dust settles. Again, this is covered in the WP:TOOSOON guideline.
 * Can you please (please) talk to the community about why you don't think these things are relevant? Guliolopez (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

THIS PAGE WILL BE MERGED
I am left with no other choice but to MERGE this article with the Economy of the Republic of Ireland article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I CHANGED MY MIND
I decided to bring back the Celtic Phoenix article as I believe it deserves an article, like the Celtic Tiger. This article too much will NEVER be merged or deleted!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi DylanMcKaneWiki. Before suggesting that you perhaps support this position (with a response perhaps to any of the concerns raised by other editors), I would respectfully point you to the policies relating to avoiding using capitals for emphasis, signing posts, and those relating to "ownership" of articles. Given the latter, and as several editors still lean in favour of the merge proposal, you really have to explain what positives you see - that would outweigh those concerns. Guliolopez (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Making ultimatums or what will never or always will happen, is never a good sign of a collaborative editing. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Merge/CFORK
As per my other notes on this topic, I still have significant concerns that, while this topic remains a "standalone" article, it seems to serve only as a POVFORK for more "upbeat" opinions on economic "news". It also remains a COATRACK for loosely related developments in the area. (By this I mean that the article largely coins a term (or extends a recently coined and infrequently used term), and then we lump anything that supports that term/concept into it - even if the original publisher or source didn't actually associate the concept with the term itself). In that sense it seems to skirt the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH guidelines. If this article is to remain a standalone, it should be moved to a summary style sub-article that uses a different subject title. But I am still in a merge camp on this... Guliolopez (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Largely agreed, though I don't see the point of a sub-article, to be honest. Have you seen the AN/I case? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Economy of RoI article. This article is a pov fork from an editor who know nothing about NPOV. Snappy (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No arguments made to retain. Can anyone do a merge, or does it need to be an admin? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently no, it doesn't need to be an admin. In the absence of any reasons not to merge being presented, I propose doing the merge tomorrow, 6th June. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)