Talk:Counties of Ireland/Archive 1

Old 2004 post
All of the various counties appear to be in articles of the form "County Name", which I don't think is the usual nomenclature here on Wikipedia. I'm thinking of moving them all to "Name County" instead, or just "Name." Any objections or other comments? Bryan 00:29, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "County XXXX" is the usual way of referring to Counties in Ireland. - Nunh-huh 00:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah. No moves, then. :) Bryan 00:49, 3 April 2004 (UTC)

Alphabetical list
I'm of the opinion that this list is redundant, and just sits looking ugly and taking up space.

Administrative regions are already discussed and detailed above the table, former names are discussed below. There's a full list of counties beside the map. There's only a small amount of information relatively speaking (evidenced by the amount of blank cells), so I view the table as unnecessary.

zoney &#09619;  &#09618; talk 19:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed, its better to have a general discussion in the article on history rather than a table which is just a lot of air! Djegan 19:45, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

A paragraph explaining why in Ireland it's "county name"
It'd be nice if someone could add a paragraph to Counties of Ireland explaining why, contrary to everywhere else (e.g. in the US: "Middlesex county", etc.), in Ireland the word county comes first (e.g. "county Cork").


 * It's just the way it is. And we were first :-). I do not think any explanation is necessary. Just accept it as yet another difference between the countries. zoney &#09827; talk 17:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well it could be for example the influence of the Irish language, I don't know. Everything's got an explanation. For example if I were asked to explain the British or U.S. order I would say: "in languages were the (determinative) adjective precedes the noun (such as English) a noun which limits (determines) another noun normally comes first", hence "Suffolk county" just like "red car". The Irish order is not normally compatible with English syntax. On the other hand it could be a variation on "the county of xxx", for example: "the county of Cork" becoming "County Cork". That's what I would call an explanation. I'm sure there is one.


 * Well, if there is a real verifiable reason, it could perhaps be noted, but we currently do not have that. However, in Irish, one does have Contae (county) first (e.g. Contae Chorcaí - for Corcaigh - Cork). This is because the Irish literally means "County (of) Cork" (for example) - and in fact, the latter noun is suitably altered to reflect the relationship ("of") to the initial noun. zoney &#09827; talk 02:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I reckon its like the British / American River Thames / Hudson River divide, except that in England only County Durham uses "County" at all; the other Traditional counties of England have things like -shire, -land, -sex, -folk instead (admittedly, all suffixes rather than prefixes). Joestynes 10:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the county article addresses why most of the English "counties" are called shires -- it's the native Anglo-Saxon system. And there is a small graf in the article telling people in Ireland it's "county XXX" I think it's important to know why (e.g., the third paragraph in this section), as this would benefit the layperson, who stumbles upon the page and wants to maybe know why (beyond "we were first" =P). Bderwest 23:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrative counties
We need a separate map here for the current administrative counties. Counties of England has no fewer than 4 maps! Joestynes 10:24, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Origin/ age of counties
Just a reader happening by, great to see the work but I was a bit surprised at "While the provinces have existed for centuries, the counties were first set up in the 19th century to provide a framework for local government." This is simply not correct - the counties are not as old as the ancient provinces (of which there were five, one of which became the county of Meath, then split in East Meath / Westmeath) and are only partially based on the old divisions pre-Strongbow but the counties are well-established, the last county, Wicklow, being created centuries ago from south Dublin and north/ east Carlow (there is a reference to Caterlough further on in the article - this is an archaic spelling of Carlow, which then ran all the way to the coast, and included Arklow town), and the process began quite a bit earlier (County Dublin's origins lie in the late 12th or early 13th century).

I'd have to check but by 1300, there were quite a few of the modern counties, such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Kerry, Tipperary, Kildare, Oriel/ Louth, and (south) Connaught and Roscommon, as well as in-formation Ulster and Meath (deLacy country), and at some time Carlow and Wexford, and Kilkenny. Queen's (Laois now) and King's (Offaly) were formed in a period of Plantation, then Longford, Antrim, and the division of Connaught into Galway, Thomond/ Clare, Mayo and Cavan, then the division of Ulster (Donegal, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Monaghan, Coleraine/ Derry, Armagh). Wicklow was created last to separate the wilder parts of the then very large County Dublin, being bulked up with the coastal part of Carlow.

Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.21 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2005‎ (UTC)

I'll look this up properly and come back with references and if I can find some, some of the old mapping - the counties are shown in maps from at least the 1700's on.

(TW) The Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 was a significant milestone in the framing of the counties and their status.

Hello, I don't know where this comment came from but the Act of 1898 had nothing to do with the "framing" of counties at all, if by that boundaries etc. are meant. The last major boundary work was in the 1840's, concerning enclaves of one county inside another. The county boundaries were last amended to any major degree in 1606, when Wicklow was formed, and many have been stable for much longer. The Act of 1898 really related to how the counties were governed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.179.185 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of Information by Office of National Statistics in UK
Alistair Dent, the Mapping Services Manager for the Office of National Statistics in the UK, has advised the helpdesk that this article has been used as research material in developing maps for a forthcoming publication. Well done to all those involved in preparing the article. Capitalistroadster 00:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Londonderry and article changes
There seem to be a lot of revisions but is it this reader's imagination or are many simply someone taking out County Londonderry and someone else putting it back? If so, it looks a bit amateur. I think many would understand that Londonderry is not popular with all but the fact is, and there is no doubt at all about it, I'm afraid, that the County around the old territory of Doire was defined for the very purpose of creating Londonderry, and was never anything else. There never was a County Derry. County Londonderry was made for and given to the London Company, taking much from the old County Coleraine. A place like Wikipedia needs to be above the question of sentimental dislike of a concept like a county name. 194.237.142.21 13:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)TW

Some dubious assertions
I've made some changes. Justifications:


 * I dont believe it is useful to count 35 counties of Ireland. There are 29 administrative counties of the Republic and 6 ceremonial counties in NI, but to lump these together is not comparing like with like.  The 32 county figure is so widely quoted, I think it best to give it first and qualify it afterwards.  I do agree that it would be good to display the new counties (and the cities) on the map, but I would rather leave the traditional names in the map-key for the moment to match the current map.


 * Dubious assertions:
 * The counties are subdivisions of the ancient Provinces of Ireland, made up, in general, from smaller territories. While the provinces have existed in some form for many centuries, the counties developed under the Norman and British administrations and also from the Christian dioceses.
 * The modern borders of the Provinces are derived from the best-approximating county boundaries, not vice versa. Well, arguably you can make a case for Connaught and Ulster, but certainly not Munster and Leinster.  Diocesan boundaries bear no relation that I can see to county boundaries.


 * Removed assertion:
 * The strict definition of what constitutes a county in Ireland has been slightly blurred by a growing association of some of the population to their respective administrative county, most prominently noticeable (due to historical influences) in the counties of North Tipperary, South Tipperary and in more recent times the divisions of County Dublin, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin.
 * In many areas, localities within counties do have a sense of identity distinct from the rest of the county.  North and South Tipperary, and the "North County" of Dublin, are among the most distinct cases, but how this relates to the administrative boundaries is highly conjectural: West Cork, Connemara, etc are distinct without any administrative basis.  I don't know of any DLR or South Dublin sense of solidarity.


 * 331 baronies: some sources give the count as 273. Can anyone explain this discrepancy?


 * "Anglo-Saxon noblemen" &rarr; "Anglo-Norman noblemen". Obviously. jnestorius(talk) 21:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as the baronies are concerned, it would presumably depend on the year; they were not static and were subject to splits and amlgamations like any other division. !'m just looking at Counting the People by E Margaret Crawford which lists the units listed in the various censuses of the nineteenth century, and incidentally charts some changes. For example, Athlone Barony in Roscommon was split into North Athlone and South Athlone baronies between the 1871 and 1881 censuses, Lower and Upper Carbury Baronies in Slgo were joined between 1821 and 1831. And then there are the two "half baronys" of Rathdown in Dublin and Wicklow.


 * I would agree that diocesan boundaries have no relation to county boundaries except coincidentally. The dioceses were created for specific tribal groups in the 12th century (since when they have obviously been realigned and merged), and predate counties. Lozleader 21:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In strict legal terms, in the Republic of Ireland, their is no such thing as "administrative county" - the only legal discription is, well a "county". Whilst terms like "administrative county", "historical county" and "traditional county" are useful ad-hoc terms to distinguish between counties they have no legal basis, at present. See Talk:Fingal, for the legal stuff. Djegan 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Northern Ireland things are more blurry, but again I think any attempt to promote "ceremonial county" maybe unwise (indeed their was a time when I attempted to promote so) as rather the counties are counties used for the purposes of the lord lieutenant and postal addresses (the Postcode Address File of the Royal Mail still uses the counties).

In summary their are 29 counties of the Republic of Ireland and 6 counties of Northern Ireland. What the GAA and popular culture use is just part of the story, and not the end final word on WP:VERIFY. Djegan 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. My point is that, if one number is to be mentioned in the opening sentence, it should be 32 rather than 35.  One might well argue for mentioning no number at all so soon, though personally I think the current caveats are adequate. jnestorius(talk) 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are now 35 counties on the island (which is, sadly, true), then the article should state that, if it's going to state any number. Otherwise, a casual reader just skimming the article could well get the impression (or maintain the impression, as I had done till recently) that there are 32 counties when, in fact, there are 35.  Otherwise it'd be like stating in Dublin that "The population of Dublin comprises 100,000 Polish people." and only later mentioning the near-million Irish.  (Bad example, I know. It's late).


 * I dont believe it is useful to count 35 counties of Ireland. The point is that it is now (sadly, IMHO) correct to count 35 counties, not 32.  Bastun 01:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there are amongst us a few people who insist on maintaining there are now 29 counties in the Republic of Ireland. You just don't get it. This is quite simply not the case. The 26 counties ARE GEOGRAPHICAL AND LEGAL DIVISIONS, not administrative divisions. Please remember that and state that in your edits. Nowhere will you see the government representing more than 26 counties on a local level, nowhere will you find the Irish Ordinance Survey mapping more than 26 counties, nowhere will you see semi-state bodies represent more than 26 counties, nowhere will you find 29 counties been represented at any international level BECAUSE ONLY 26 COUNTIES EXIST. However, for administrative reasons, two counties (Dublin and Tipperary) have been subdivided for that purpose and that purpose only, not an a legal county division only as an administrative division. Why would the language commission, who decide on the names of what legally exists in Ireland, specifically list the counties separately from the administrative counties, unless the 26 counties were the only true legal county entities? If the legal counties and administrative counties had the same standing then they would be listed together. The An tOrdú Logainmneacha (Contaetha agus Cúigí) 2003 lists all the counties as defined by the Official Languages Act 2003 and from this page you can download the an overview document of the legislation . Check out this listing and then stop pushing a falsehood. Yes, the 2003 local government act did create new counties within Dublin, along with the existing Co. Tipperary divisions, but only for administrative purposes. Be specific about this fact when using the terms County Fingal, etc. I am fed up seeing inaccuracies propagated like infoboxes that state the Skerries, Dublin or Balbriggan are in County Fingal when that is only an administrative county and the infobox is for mainly geographical data. ww2censor 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ww2censor, I would have made exactly those arguments - and did - until Djegan pointed out the relavant legislation to me here: Talk:Fingal. Sad but true, county Dublin no longer exists, because the Oireachtas legislated it out of existence.  Bastun 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An analogy: How many cities in the United States? The term is defined differently in different states.  There are only 64 in Pennsylvania, but 147 in Nebraska which has a much smaller population.  The comparison is meaningless so the total is spurious.  By all means state there are 29 counties in the Republic of Ireland.  But there are 35 in the island?  Meaningless.  Also, given my edit made other changes, simple reversion is clumsy.  I have edited what I hope is an intro more agreeable to all. jnestorius(talk) 02:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen the legislation Djegan's refers to but it deals with administration by local government not to geographical divisions of the state. Even in the Talk:Fingal page he says: Yes County Dublin, as an area or county in law does not exist, well that is not what the act says. It says that the: Establishment and boundaries of administrative counties shall cease to exist, etc and new ones established. It says nothing about the geographical or legal county status at all. So, where was this problem before 2003? No one ever made the assertion there were 27 counties just because Co. Tipperary is administratively divided into 2, so why the problem now. Look at the references I provided. In the meantime I should try to contact an Irish barrister friend who has an interest in such things and will no doubt clarify it from a legal perspective - that would be where the final word on this matter would be decided. ww2censor 04:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Re the use of the terms 26 counties and 6 counties as found on the links above. My interpretation is that they are alternative names for the two jurisdictions used to either avoid confusion or to avoid using the official titles. The Dublin based state being, according to the constitution, Ireland (or Éire in the Irish language), but is often described as "the 26 counties" to avoid confusing it with the island of Ireland.
 * The state is also designated as the "Republic of Ireland" per 1948 legislation, but this term is not used by Republicans who prefer to use "the 26 counties" in its place.
 * Similarly the term "Northern Ireland" is objected to by Republicans. I was at a seminar once where activists made repeated complaints to the Irish Government speakers using the term "Northern Ireland" and wanting them to use "Six Counties" in its place.
 * The point I'm trying to (long-windedly) make is that the "26 counties" and "6 counties" have independent existences as geographical terms, never mind how many counties there actually are in law, so the phrase "across the twenty six counties" doesn't prove the existence of that number of counties (or of any). Lozleader 09:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the term "Republic of Ireland" tends not to be used in officialdom by Dublin, its simply frowned on in any official sense and thus 26 counties forms an important pseudonym when Ireland is simply ambigious. Djegan 22:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jnestorius - the current opening paragraph seems fine to me as it reads at present, after your latest edit. It gets all the facts across, at any rate. However, regarding the map, the new "administrative" counties should be included. Probably the best compromise would be leave Dublin and Tipperary links as at present and either in the list or in footnotes add in something like "(comprising North Tipperary, South Tipperary)"? Bastun 09:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The 26 counties of the republic are not "geographical and legal divisions" as someone has insisted. Their are 29 counties, this is the law of the land, the law the Oireachtas has made under the authority of the people as vested in them by the constitution. The counties are a British invention anyway, the only Irish thing about them is their cultural and historic impact. We all know the fundemental cultural and historical meaning of the 26 counties, but to claim that they are "geographical and legal divisions" is incorrect - the counties are not geographical divisions (geographical division implies they are geographically distinct from each other, e.g. islands etc), they are simply divisions created for the service of man. What is a geographical division anyway? Do you mean political division? I have never heard the term (geographical division) applied to counties of Ireland.

Those who are uncertain should consult the most recent version of the Discovery Series, Sheet 50 (Third Edition 2005) of Ordnance Survey Ireland; this map primarily of Dublin city and county maps the boundaries of city of Dublin and the counties of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin; their is no mention of County Dublin.

In legal terms the three new counties are not "created within Dublin" anymore than the Republic of Ireland is a state created within the state of Ireland. Its a logical fallacy. Any claims that the 26 counties are "geographical and legal divisions" needs to be backed up by evidence. An tOrdú Logainmneacha (Contaetha agus Cúigí) 2003 lists all the counties (administrative and historic) as does CSO Census 2002. To claim that officialdom has ignored the 29 counties is wrong. GAA loyalities do no make the law. Djegan 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

County X
In Irish usage, the word county always precedes the county name, as opposed to other English-speaking countries' usage, where it follows the name.

This is not true. In England (the quintessential "English-speaking-country"), the term "county" almost never follows the name of the county. In most cases there is simply no need, because the word shire forms a suffix. In the only anomalous example, County Durham, the formation follows the Irish pattern. The usual way, in English, of describing the full name of a county would be "County of XXXXX" - again, this puts "county" before the name, just as in Ireland. TharkunColl 23:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "always" is too strong a word for Ireland. First off, usually people say simply X, not "County X" or "X County".  Second, people occasionally do say "X County", to contrast with "X City" or "X Town".  That said, in most contexts "X County" is unidiomatic.  Without sources, I'm not sure how much to vaguify the current text. jnestorius(talk) 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical list
I've been trying to prettify the table and increase its information content. My best effort, incomplete, is as follows:

†Belfast, originally in County Antrim, acquired land from County Down when made a county borough in 1898. ‡Apart from County Dublin, the population shown for a county excludes the population of the corresponding city.

Some points:
 * 1) I don't really see the need for List of Irish counties by population and List of Irish counties by area; this information can be folded in here. Ditto County Town.
 * 2) My source for Republic population is Population of each Province, County and City and actual and percentage change, 2002 and 2006 Preliminary results of 2006 Census, Central Statistics Office. I don't know why the list article is only half updated in that regard.
 * 3) My source for Republic county areas is this, which is a good site but doesn't mention the new Dublin counties. These figures differ from the List article, presumably by inclusion/exclusion of lake surfaces.  What's Wikipolicy on that one?  I don't think either set of figures aggregate to the total area in given in Republic of Ireland.
 * 4) A big problem is the lack of official population census figures for the NI counties, as they now go by district. Where do the estimates in the List article come from?  Are there more recent ones?
 * 5) There are some discrepancies about county towns that need ironing out.
 * 6) It might be worth adding foundation/shiring dates; but that's probably something handled in an expanded History section as it's complicated for some.
 * 7) Similarly, it might be worth including the pre-modern counties (Desmond etc), but probably not.

Any comments? jnestorius(talk) 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The main problem I see with it is it lists 32 'main' counties (with subdivisions) rather than the correct 35, as per Talk, above. It would be correct instead to list those 35, and have a second column titled 'Formerly part of/formerly known as', or similar, which would include Dublin for the new counties of South Dublin, Fingal and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown; Tipperary for North and South Tipperary; and King's County & Leix for Laois, etc. Bastun 00:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the current list has 32, not 35, so at least my proposal isn't any worse. I would rather have separate tables of 29 and 6 than one of 35.  An international border is a pretty big distinction to be mentioning only in passing.  Then maybe Dub and Tipp could be in a third obsolete table with Desmond and Ferns. jnestorius(talk) 00:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Belfast included parts of Down before 1898. According to a report of the Local Government Board for Ireland for 1900/01 describes the area before and after the extension of boundaries by the Belfast Corporation Act 1896, and it gives total areas for before and after the enlargement:
 * Before 1896: in County Antrim 4,322 acres, 0 roods, 33 perches; in County Down 1,668 acres, 3 roods, 22 perches. the 1896 act added 5,814 acres, 2 roods and 8 perches from antrim and 2,910 acres, 1 rood and 24 perches from Down.
 * There was of course no problem with a borough lying in more than one county pre 1899 Lozleader 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks. That's what I get for trusting Wikipedia's own information. jnestorius(talk) 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The last time I did research on the population of the counties of Northern Ireland I could no find any official county based figures. As far as I know ther has not been such figures since the 1973 reforms of local government in Northern Ireland. They simply dont exist, any figures are estimates. Djegan 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but whose estimates are currently used on Wikipedia? If they're just some Wikipedian's, they should be zapped forthwith. jnestorius(talk) 17:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the very specific "estimated" figure for County Tyrone (166,516) is exactly the same as the totals recorded for Cookstown, Dungannon & South Tyrone, Omagh and Strabane districts at the last census. seeing as there are bits of tyrone in Fermangh District that can't be right. Lozleader 10:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mapping
I am wondering whether there is legislation requiring any mapping authority to include boundaries on published maps. This seems to be the case for Scotland and, therefore, counties and parishes have disappeared from Ordnance Survey maps and, now, there are 32 'council areas'. Laurel Bush 09:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC).
 * As mentioned above. the Ordinace Survey only defines 26 counties in the Rephblic of Ireland: look here and here. So those who still insist there are 29 counties still don't understand that is only for administration purposes. ww2censor 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple of points: the OSI has no function in defining what is and what is not a county. That's for the legislature, and this is the only applicable law defining what is and what is not a county in Ireland.  Believe me, I've looked for others and failed.  As regards the OSI pages you've referenced, they're dated 2002.  So, published after the law, yes, but I imagine they went ahead with what they had rather than rediong work in 5 counties. Bastun 12:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation with Dublin is per the law in the most recent Ordnance Survey Ireland maps, viz the boundaries of the city of Dublin and the counties of Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin are shown and the legend on the map indicates "County Boundary"; no "County Dublin" is indicated. In this case the map is Discovery Series, Sheet 50, Third Edition 2005, Ordnance Survey Ireland, Dublin - the most recent print of this 1:50,000 series sold to the general public and is on sale. As for the links referred, whilst they only show 26 counties no claim is made that "the Ordinace Survey only defines 26 counties in the Rephblic of Ireland" (sic) - their is a distinction between presentation of raw data and legal effect; whats acceptable for primary school standard does not cut it here. Their is simply no legal definition of the traditional 26 counties; successive acts of the legislature have made them meaningless beyond cultural and historic cognotations. The law indicates 29 counties, this can be show and has been shown previous. If anyone can suggest otherwise, I await sources. Djegan 17:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The linked OSI data seems pretty old, measuring things in acres and miles. I wonder if anyone has yet actually calculated how the 1.49 square miles of water in Dublin is distributed among the four county/city areas. jnestorius(talk) 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers of baronies and parishes
Regarding the disputed number of baronies and civil parishes, according to Counting the People (cited above) the numbers of these at the censuses of 1841 - 1911 was:


 * Baronies: 1841:312, 1851: 323, 1861: 323, 1871: 325, 1881 and 1891: 327
 * Civil parishes: 1871 and 1881: 2,426, 1891, 1901, 1911: 2,428

The number of townlands varies in range from 60,462 - 60,915, the number decreasing until 1901, when it increased. Lozleader 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

infobox
Is the ROI politics infobox relevent here? Since this page is also about NI, surely there shouldn't be an ROI infobox. NotMuchToSay 19:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed we already have a link in the infobox to local government which is more relevant to politics. Djegan 19:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Counties in the RoI
Why on earth does the Wiki entry state there are 26 counties in the RoI? Tipperary was split in the 1800's and Dublin over a decade ago. Why are these fundamental changes ignored?

After all, Westmeath was created by hiving off parts of Meath "... where the King's writ has not yet run...", does this mean it also isn't a county? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * There are 26 traditional counties, and then there are various administrative entities, notably the Ridings of Tipperary, and then the three bits of County Dublin. And always in parallel, the issue of County Boroughs. The article seems to me to cover all. The only thing I wish, having visited here from time to time, is that the childish back-and-forward over one county would stop. 195.96.72.22 11:28, 31 August 2007

Proposed move to Counties of the Republic of Ireland

 * Consensus was keep. ww2censor (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to deal mostly with the counties of the Republic of Ireland. There is another article for the Counties of Northern Ireland, so any relevant information from this article should be merged with that article, leaving behind, of course, some skeleton and shared history information. An admin would be better placed to move the page, as the proposed name change is currently inhabited by a redirect to this article. --Setanta747 (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be reasonable to divide this article, making three: one before 1921, under this title; one the Counties of the Republic of Ireland, and the third the existing Counties of Northern Ireland. But what does Henry II have to do with the Republic of Ireland? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposed move is incorrect as the name of the country involved in this article is Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. Using ROI is not factually correct. Also Northern Ireland is most certainly included in this article.78.16.31.226 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Lets not "carve" up this article. -- Djegan (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose pending the move of "RoI" to "Ireland". Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - The politics of British editors on WP stinks. The English should realize that just because the legal name in the UK is "Republic of Ireland", it doesn't mean that the politics of Britain extends to other countries. 75.145.158.173 (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose there seems to be a concerted effort by a group of editors to impose ROI without good reason wherever they can. -- Snowded   TALK  02:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, although the paranoia of some earlier opposers is unhelpful. The current article is far from perfect. There may well be an argument for refactoring out of Local government in the Republic of Ireland a new article called something like County-level subdivisions of the Republic of Ireland.  The "Republic of Ireland" section here should be shrunk in any case and its main link should change to such a new page if one is created.  But the current page deals primarily with the pre-partition history and the current "traditional" existence of the counties; and I think that is appropriate. jnestorius(talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose ww2censor (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Some of you are not assuming good faith and I'd like to suggest that you remain calm and civil and do not resort to insulting your fellow editors.
 * To the anon IP (75.145.158.173), you seem to be somewhat unclear as to my ethnicity etc. You suggest the "politics of British editors on WP stinks" - an insult I can only assume can be directed at myself. You then go on to immediately talk about "The English". Let me assure you that I am most definitely not English. A quick look at my user page should confirm that for you.
 * To the anon and Snowded - this is not merely a "concerted effort" to "impose RoI without good reason". On the contrary, my proposal stems from the logical standpoint that there are, in fact, two countries on the island of Ireland. Most articles on political subdivisions etc seem to be created on a per country basis. It therefore makes sense to have an article which discusses, which this one does, the cultural, political and statistical facets of the subdivisions of the state which is (mostly) to the south of my own location and another one which discusses similar information in relation to Northern Ireland. The fact that the southern state has chosen an ambiguous official name (Ireland) unfortunately complicates matters.. although that state has thankfully supplied us with the solution of using an alternative name (Republic of Ireland). The fact remains though, that we have an article which I believe is in need of sorting out - and that is my motivation. I happened to choose "Republic of Ireland" for my proposal simply because I have no problem with that name, which the state itself provided, for disambiguation purposes. I hope it's clear where I'm coming from now that I have (had to) explain myself.
 * To the anon IP (78.16.31.226.. there really are quite a lot of these anon IPs responding to discussions with regard to Irish-related articles, aren't there?) - I didn't say that Northern Ireland wasn't included in the article. Please read my proposal again.
 * I welcome the comments (and 'votes') from the others and I consider them being much more constructive, despite my disagreement with some of them.
 * Djegan: The article should perhaps be 'carved up' in line with the way the island has (for good or for bad)!
 * Jnestorius & Septentrionalis: I find myself agreeing with you both, to a certain extent. To put it another way, I find that you agree with me, to a certain extent. I have no objections to three articles if enough material can be written to make them half-decent articles on their own right. In fact, I had considered that option as I was making the proposal.
 * As for Henry II, it was during his rule of England that Strongbow was invited to Ireland (Desmond?), as far as I remember, wasn't it? Maybe he had something to do with, directly or indirectly, setting up some of the initial political boundaries or something.
 * To you all: Please follow the advise I think is still given in the guide regarding discussions of this nature - a simple Support, Oppose or Comment should suffice.. there is no need for all this "Strong", "Weak" or "very" crap! --Setanta747 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't endorse any abuse here, but Sentanta you have been around long enough to know exactly what you are doing. I don't buy the plea of innocence.  -- Snowded   TALK  04:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Snowded - whatever you say. I have stated the facts as they are, and I'm pretty damn sure you're not a frigging mind-reader. So, if you don't mind, pretty please keep your opinions to yourself. I couldn't give two shits if you think I'm guilty (of what?!?) or if my halo outshines the Sun: I have explained my motivation, and there you have it. Just because you are perhaps super-sensitive or paranoid, it doesn't follow that everyone is motivated and coloured solely by the shade your orange-coloured sunglasses would seem to indicate to you.
 * Can I be any more clear for you? --Setanta747 (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying "I don't buy the plea of innocence" is hardly a insult its a reasonable statement If you want to respond with accusations and exaggeration fine.  I think it is very clear that you are an experienced editor on this and related pages, if you were not, then you should have been aware of the consequences.  FAD you have not done anything wrong in Wikipedia terms that I can see per se, but you have lacked a degree of sensitivity.  -- Snowded   TALK  04:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - it is most definitely not a "reasonable statement". My experience as an editor has nothing to do with this proposal. As for being "aware of the consequences", I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea what "FAD" stands for.
 * "Sensitivity" - I am not concerned with worrying about every little issue that may or may not affect the sensibilities of every editor whilst editing Wikipedia. I am more interested in helping present a clear and unambiguous set of articles for the general public to peruse. Having said that, I believe I have been quite sensitive to your apparent problems with me over the last day or so. I would go as far as to suggest that you are the one who has not shown sensitivity, by making accusation after accusation and assumption after assumption. I would appreciate it greatly if you would stop making this some kind of personal thing, discussing your perceptions of me, and instead concentrate on your efforts to improve Wikipedia. --Setanta747 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose. What's wrong with the simple name of Ireland? Most people in the world refer to it as such. ROI is so ponderous. Besides, nobody ever calls France, The Republic of France, or Italy The Republic of Italy do they? So why Ireland?--jeanne (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is "wrong" with the name is that it is ambiguous: there is more than one state in Ireland. The government of the southern state supplied an alternative title for that state. However, the actual name is not my concern - I'm more interested in the merits of the proposal that I made. --Setanta747 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The official long name of France is "La république Française" ('the French Republic') I believe. Check ISO 3166. -- Evertype·✆ 09:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but most people just call the nation France, including the French. China is also officially named the Peoples' Republic of China but nobody uses it when referring to China. Now the Czech Republic is another matter. You would not use any other form to describe that nation.--jeanne (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is arguable as to what "most people" call the state that is known as the Republic of Ireland. It often depends on mood or context (for example, with the need to disambiguate). I've called it various things myself in day-to-day conversation.
 * With regard to the Peoples' Republic of China, here are a couple of references to that very name from a quick Google search:.
 * More importantly however, the fact is that with both China and France, there are no equivalent landmasses that share the name, which could lead to confusion - ambiguity. In fact, the Wikipedia article on the Chinese State uses the name People's Republic of China to disambiguate from both China the historical region and the Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan). In a similar situation as this, the article on Taiwan is about the island - analogous with the article Ireland. So, ironically, you have just shown precedent for the status quo for the various articles on Ireland.
 * I don't know whether this would make you reconsider, but there it is. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. This move seems to have been proposed in bad faith, to provoke the community. The article discusses all 32 counties. There is no reason to move. -- Evertype·✆ 09:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The move hasn't been proposed in "bad faith". In fact, you seem to be assuming bad faith, if anything. I should also point out that it was not necessarily my intention to simply move the article. There is no reason that an article on every county on the island shouldn't exist in harmony with another two articles regarding the counties in each of the states. Again, as I said in my previous reply below here, I think a re-wording of the proposal will probably be the best thing to see this discussion move forward. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. ClemMcGann (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose The article discusses all 32 counties. There is no reason to move. The proposed move is incorrect as the name of the country involved in this article is Ireland not the Republic of Ireland. Related discussion here. -- Domer48 'fenian'  14:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment again: Yet another person is not assuming good faith with regard to my intent, despite my having explained this at reasonable length. Please keep your opinions focused on the proposal and not the proposer. I have no deliberate intention of "provoking" anyone.
 * Forgive me, but I do not believe you. This article is about all 32 counties. Your proposal is inappropriate. -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether you believe me or not is neither here nor there: you have the guidelines - use them. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not demonstrate good faith. This article is about all 32 counties. It says so in the first sentence. Therefore your proposal to move it to a title which would refer to a 26-county Ireland cannot be taken seriously. It can only be taken to be deliberately provocative. -- Evertype·✆ 10:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have demonstrated good faith during the course of this discussion and with the proposal itself. There is an alternative to your accusation: that I made the proposal seriously and that I consider that it might be in the interests of Wikipedia to follow convention and create articles which specifically refer to the different counties in the respective states in Ireland.. and that I had no intention of provoking anything other than a discussion on the idea. By accepting that possibility, you would be assuming good faith. Apparently, therefore, you are not. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, there is no need to add adverbs such as strongly or weak to the verb. --Setanta747 (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose the proposed move and the ongoing campaign to insist on "RoI". Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] In response to Domer48.. Ireland is an island. It is also the .. shall we say preferred name of the state (mostly) to the south of Northern Ireland? Most articles on Wikipedia seem to deal with the various facets of different countries on an individual basis. At the same time, when it is necessary, for example, when a country shares a geological aspect with that of another, mention is made of that other country in both articles. Sometimes a completely new article is created, which deals with, in this example, the geological aspect itself. Unfortunately, as I've said above, the option of creating a third article (there are already two) is marred by the fact that some people object to the usage of the name 'Republic of Ireland'. In this way this proposal is indeed related in some way to the other proposal you have given a link to. I find it interesting and curious that the same names, all of whom (with the exception of Djegan and PMAnderson, I think) also support your proposition that the name of the article about the flag of the Republic be changed from 'Flag of the Republic of Ireland' to 'Flag of Ireland'. I am not interested in rehashing that discussion, or the discussion regarding the name of the article on the Republic itself (which is presumably still ongoing), here. I am interested only in editors' opinions as to the possible dissemination of this article. In response to Redking7, this is not part of a "campaign". I get the feeling people aren't reading what I have said, to be honest. There is no need for adverbs such as "strongly". --Setanta747 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is unwelcome and provocative. -- Evertype·✆ 18:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I also think you might want to read this and this.--Setanta747 (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't lawyer. Respond. This article is about the 32 counties. It says so in the very first sentence. See it, there? Go ahead. Look. Now, please favour us with an explanation as to why you want to move this article so that it refers to the 26-county state? Your proposal cannot be taken seriously. It is absurd. I don't see a shred of good faith here. -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your accusations - more than once now. I'd like you to stop it now, as it is disruptive to the discussion, and might tend to prejudice.
 * As I have explained, my proposal was probably badly worded - I will amend that soon. This article is indeed about thirty-two counties. I am suggesting that perhaps an article about twenty-six (or perhaps twenty-nine?) counties might be desirable. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose seoR (talk) - strongly - the substance of the proposal has little merit, as the counties have a common history, and the article is a good gathering on the topic. I could see some point in, as suggested above, an additional County-level subdivisons article re the modern state of Ireland, which could do in more detail into the development of governmental structures, but that would be better in, e.g., Local Government of, looking at the whole breadth of sub-national administration.
 * A pity about some of the discussion, including some of the proposer's responses, and the slightly silly repetition of opposition to "Strongly Oppose", which is normal in Wikipedia, conveys useful information, and which anyone is free to use.
 * I will not enter into the debate on the name of the country. Legally the situation is clear (there is a country named "Ireland", and a part of another country, called "Northern Ireland"), but the WP disamb issue, also valid, is for elsewhere. SeoR (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Seor. I do think there is reason enough to disseminate the article on a per-state basis (in fact, an article already exists for one of the states). What this (new) article is called isn't overly important to me, although it would seem like the natural thing to label it as I had suggested - unambiguously. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, your proposal of moving and renaming I do not think appropriate - the counties developed fully as one set of 32. But, per PMAnderson, I could see a way of leaving this article mostly alone, while developing small articles or parts of articles on the modern development. SeoR (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I do agree with you. I would remind you of course, that the counties also developed as fully as one set of 117 or so. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean about some of my responses being a pity. Perhaps you could elaborate for me. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Without dwelling on it, some of the responses risked being sharp, or personal. SeoR (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are referring to my exchange with Snowded, which was the result of one night of him following me around and making responses (and accusations) to my edits very quickly. This may not be obvious from the posts on this talk page in isolation, but there you have it. Snowded has said they regretted some or all of the actions on that night. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "silly repetition" to "strong" or "weak" or other such adverbs.. well I seem to remember a couple of years ago having read a guideline about it, regarding the process of polling. I can't find it now. I don't think marking !votes as either strong or weak is particularly useful. Nobody is going to get and extra couple of votes for a "strong" opinion, or half a vote for a "weak" opinion, should !votes be counted. I haven't asked for a headcount in any case, as I thought we could engage in discussion about the article and my suggestion first. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Silly" was a little sharp, sorry, but I did not understand why this point was repeatedly made. I find the qualifiers useful, as, from many other debates, others do. SeoR (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I had thought it was a guideline, and I vaguely disagree with the usefulness of it. But fair enough - I'm not going to labour the point any more than I have already! :) --Setanta747 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in having (another) debate on the names of the countries either - I'm already involved in that elsewhere. Obviously I can see a possibility that it should be debated, with alternative possibilities explored, at some point. I had hoped to discuss the merits of the proposal, as a whole, first. As several editors have jumped in, rather quickly and defensively, to give voice to their objection merely to the name of one of the states in Ireland first, that leaves the debate on the actual proposal idea rather untouched. I will note that a couple of editors, including yourself Seor, have agreed with the principle of my idea, even though they have written the word(s) "(strongly) oppose". These objections, or the vast majority of them at least, merely concern the name of one of the states of Ireland. I have a feeling I will need to re-word my proposal in order to avoid restricting this discussion to only and specifically the name of the particular state in question. --Setanta747 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be blunt Setanta, as above, I do not agree with any principal of "that Counties of Ireland be renamed and moved to Counties of the Republic of Ireland" but could see my way to having some moderate distinct treatment of the last 90 years' situation. SeoR (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Your opinion is not very much different to my own, I feel - if there is enough (unique) material to warrant a third article, then we should maybe endeavour to create one. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On the name of state issue, since it keeps coming up, I am clear that Ireland has only one legal name - Ireland - but I have historically, just about, accepted the "Republic of Ireland" article title on the basis of disambiguation. But I do dislike any attempt to push any agenda which undermines the real country name.  No one would try, e.g., to lable "France" as "RoF", and there is no NI reason, as "Northern Ireland" is a distinct name.  SeoR (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, the article on the Republic of Ireland does make it clear that the state chose the name "Ireland" to describe it. There is, I think, a section on the naming of the state.. and there is another, separate article on the names of the Irish state (that should turn blue). Additionally, I think there are mentions in other articles that the "official name" is "Ireland". It seems sensible to me, as this choice of name is a fact. --Setanta747 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't speak for "SeoR" but cannot see any evidence that s/he supports your "principle", though it could be argued that s/he is open to a separate proposal by PMAnderson. But I want to tackle your question about responses, as there are clear examples such as "The fact that the southern state has chosen an ambiguous official name (Ireland) unfortunately complicates matters", an outrageous comment from, well, you. Ireland is, oddly enough, Ireland, and the fact that one day after it became independent, part of it opted out under a dubious treaty, does not change the fact. And the vast majority of the island of Ireland's people see only one country, a single Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.107.121 (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, with regard to our relative harmony on the subject, I had said, in my very first response here (04:14, 27 October), "I have no objections to three articles if enough material can be written to make them half-decent articles on their own right. In fact, I had considered that option as I was making the proposal." My subsequent replies (chronologically speaking) were written with that in mind.
 * With regard to what I had said about the State having chosen an ambiguous name - if you consider that outrageous, I cannot do anything about that. Them's the facts of the matter, as they say. Your choice of words regarding Northern Ireland are interesting, but beyond the scope of this discussion. So far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with having been given a choice and opting out. The "dubious" treaty you refer to was voted for and accepted by majority by the Southern Parliament and also by Sinn Féin (albeit it more narrowly). Whether or not a "majority" (and I'd certainly call that dubious) consider the island to be "one country" has no bearing on this discussion. Wikipedia has to deal with the facts, and the fact is that the Republic of Ireland's jurisdiction or territory doesn't extend over all of the island. Nor does Northern Ireland's or the UK's. There has been eighty-odd years of separate development with regard to the counties in Ireland and, while they (the 'traditional' counties) are treated as the same as they had been prior to the Free State's exit from the country by many organisations, they have evolved slightly differently according to the individual territorial laws etc. --Setanta747 (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Very Strongly Oppose Having lurked on this topic for a while without getting involved, I think it's time to add my view. There has long been an uneasy split on WP over the name of the country/state (Republic of) Ireland.  While no consensus has formed to change the name of the article from "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland", I would share the view that if a consensus was needed to keep the current title, it would also fail.  In other words, the community is split 50/50 whereas in the past there was a stronger ROI consensus.  This shows that there is a worthwhile strategic position in gaining a consensus, and certain British editors are quick change article titles where possible, even in full knowledge that the WP community is not in agreement.  The related "Flag of.." article that Setanta747 moved recently is a case in point, although it is now obvious that this article will soon be moved back.  But Setanta747 already knows that it will be moved back, and knows the strength of argument behind the move back.  With this in mind, despite reading Setanta747's claims of innocence, it is hard for most editors to AGF these motives.  In my opinion, this is clearly an attempt by a group of British editors to attempt to move as many article as they can before the consensus shifts away from ROI as it has been.  I agree with the previous IP editor that the sole argument made revolves around the inability of these British editors to accept the simple fact that the name of the country is undeniably "Ireland".  It is also a dishonest tactic to attempt to pass of the fact that the state changed to a Republic with the Irish 1948 act as justification, since the real reason for pushing ROI is more clearly rooted in the British 1949 act that named the state as the "Republic of Ireland" and is the reason for this day that British media continue to use the term.  They don't use it because of a 1948 Irish act and using this reason whily trying to justify continued usage has run out of steam.  It's a lie.  So excuse my longest post ever on this topic, but for all these reasons, I oppose. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 207 I'd like you to consider this Wikipedia policy - with regard to your suggestions about "certain British editors". To start with, I could easily counter your accusation with the suggestion that other 'certain editors' are quick to do this or do that. It's not relevant to the proposal however.
 * You have stated that I moved an article "Flag of.." something. I do not recall having moved any such article. I last moved an article over two weeks ago, and it had nothing to do with any flag.
 * As for your claims that it is "hard to AGF" - try. All I can see from your response here is "Setanta747 this.." and "Setanta747 that.." I'm interested in myself, certainly - but not so self-absorbed that I want to discuss me on this page. Please keep your prejudices about me to yourself.
 * As for your assertion that "British editors" have an inability to accept the name of the southern Irish state, as its government had chosen, is "Ireland" - how many times do I have to repeat that I never had any doubt.
 * With all this prejudice against me involved in this debate, it is hard to discover a way forward with regard to the actual proposal. Instead, all a few of you seem to want to do is to score some political point with a perceived enemy - The Evil British Editor™.
 * Although, perhaps due to my nature of responding to each and every one of you, and each and every point therein, I have been feeding some trolls. --Setanta747 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I will say it again: This article is about all 32 counties. It says so in the first sentence. Therefore this proposal to move it to a title which would refer to a 26-county Ireland cannot be taken seriously. It can only be taken to be deliberately provocative. -- Evertype·✆ 10:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure
I think the verdict is clear, the move should not take place, there is no support and conversation is now getting heated within nothing being added. Can we now close this? Silence to be deemed consent! -- Snowded  TALK  11:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please close it. -- Evertype·✆ 09:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a discussion mainly about perceived attitudes of me does not constitute a discussion on the actual proposal. We have made, I feel, some progress though - outside of the discussions about myself and "British editors" and the name of a state. --Setanta747 (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for anyone else, but as a later arrival to the debate, I appreciated some actual discussion, and the careful replies to points, and it did, to me, show a convergence (or in some cases, simply a clarification that there was less difference than appeared at first). The answer appears to me to be to create a third article, on counties in the state of Ireland, and build up the "modern counties" articles of both Ireland and Northern Ireland.  When these are ready, this main article can then be edited back a little.  This will give depth on the topic, as there has been interesting development in both parts of the island over the 80+ years.  SeoR (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that Counties of Northern Ireland should be merged with this one. No need for three articles, or two. One should be enough. -- Evertype·✆ 10:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Evertype. We don't need three separate articles when one will suffice.--jeanne (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Counties of the UK
Why are some British editors trying to include this article in the category of "Counties of the United Kingdom"? Is this another example of British POV pushers? If this article dealt solely with "Counties of Northern Ireland" then I'd understand it. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about the island of Ireland and it is thus valid to have both present, if you change it to Counties of Northern Ireland then I think you would have a case, but just deleting all reference to the UK is wrong. -- Snowded   TALK  03:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. This article should be excluded from both categories "Counties of the Republic of Ireland" (if there is one) and "Counties of the United Kingdom".  Since it deals with the entire island, it shouldn't make the mistake of categorizing one set of counties into an incorrect category. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The two articles are logical links. UK was not, removing both is petty.  -- Snowded   TALK  05:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for name-calling, and is it really "silliness" to try to suggest that the counties are part of the UK, or are part of the country Ireland? I disagree with putting the category of "Counties of Northern Ireland" into this article too, for the very same reasons as the same logical error exists. Normally an article's contents are a subset of the category, but you are using the category as a subset of the article.  The counties in this article are not all "Counties of Northern Ireland".  Nor are the all "Counties of the UK", etc. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you have forgotten Irish history but all 32 counties were part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922, and the 6 Northern Ireland counties are constituent counties of the United Kingdom, so both categories are valid because this article covers all 32 counties of the island of Ireland. It would be otherwise if the article was only about the 26 counties of the current Irish state, but it is not. ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it normal practice to include categories that only have relevance in a historical capacity, even though the implication for readers is that it is current? If there existed a category of "Former counties of the UK", it would make sense. This article talks about all 32 counties, and the categories must be relevant to *all* 32, otherwise the implications are incorrect. 207.181.210.6 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both categories have current relevance -- Snowded  TALK  15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You (207.18 etc. ) would be a lot more credible in that argument if you hadn't started by leaving in the Irish (state) reference. Both categories apply and are relevant. Also there was no name calling above -- Snowded   TALK  15:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the category I recently removed (which is why you accused me of being "petty" above?) You can't have it both ways - leave it in to justify having inaccurate categories all round, or call me petty because I take it out.  Sheesh.  207.181.210.6 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit history should be enough to validate my comment. -- Snowded   TALK  15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we where to remove all historical or non-current category links, many article's categorising would decimated. There is no implication about current or historical status. Both are relevant even though you may disagree. If this WERE an article where no historical details pertained, you might have a small point to make. ww2censor (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"State"
In the alphabetical list under "State" it lists "Republic of Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". The names of the States are "Ireland" on the one hand and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" on the other. This wants editing. "State" at least seems to be formally incorrect. -- Evertype·✆ 18:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're just taking things to extremes now. Give it a rest. Mooretwin (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Upper and Nether Tyrone
I disagree with this:
 * Former counties include: County Coleraine which formed the basis of County Londonderry, and the counties of Nether and Upper Tyrone which were merged to former County Tyrone, and Desmond which was, in 1606, split between Counties Cork and Kerry.

According to "Tir Eoghain 'North of the Mountain'" (Katharine Simms; Chp.6 of Derry and Londonderry : history & society; [ISBN 0906602858]), Nether Tyrone was "Tyrone North of the Mountain" (Slieve Gallion) long before Ulster was shired, and it was Nether Tyrone that combined with County Coleraine to form County Londonderry. I don't believe that "Upper Tyrone" and "Nether Tyrone" were ever separate counties. jnestorius(talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, this information was based on a commentary on Speed's maps of Ireland, but I suspect that your source is more likely to be accurate. Besides which, when I entered this information five years ago, it wasn't common to include sources, so I couldn't guarantee that is the actual source and would struggle to locate it again. Warofdreams talk 16:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this 1688 book will be of some use as it mentions all three counties in its definition of Ulster. ww2censor (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That book is from 1688, whereas Tyrone and Londonderry were established in 1591 and 1613, so I think its author was just mistaken. New History of Ireland vol ix, Maps 41-3 give good detail on the counties and don't mention upper/nether either. jnestorius(talk) 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily enough the Place-Names of Northern Ireland project by the Institute of Irish Studies at Queens University published a book in 1996 (which i've now referenced into the article and will into the two county articles in question) which makes clear reference to the counties of Nether Tyrone and Upper Tyrone as well as stating that Jobson's map of 1590 which shows the counties of Ulster states the following (direct quote): Antrym, Armagh, Colrane, Downe, Manahan, Farmanaugh, Terconnel, and Upper and Nether Tyrone as the names of counties. Case settled they are counties. Mabuska (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, case not settled. What exactly does the 1996 book say? Gaelic Tír Eógain was divided into Upper (roughly Co. Londonderry plus Inishowen) and Nether (Co. Tyrone and parts of Co. Armagh). But Perrot's 1585/6 shiring made a single county Tyrone, and the first sheriff was appointed in 1591. However, there was talk after 1585 of dividing Tyrone between Turlough Luineach Ó Neill and Hugh Ó Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone. Perhaps Jobson recycles the older names for these prospective subdivisions? I don't think the arrangement amounted to separate shires. Also, Margey (2006, p.144) describes Jobson 's 1590 maps as "mapping the proposed counties of Ulster" [my emphasis]. here's one of Jobson's maps, though not the one you refer to.
 * jnestorius(talk) 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * jnestorius(talk) 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I quoted what the source says above. Maybe they were just proposed counties but maybe not. Oddly enough i have an old Harp Lager poster which uses an old Ulster map which states on it Upper and Nether Tyrone - maybe its Jobson's 1590 map lol. Though the source i use is a very indepth, comprehensive and resourced history on Ulster, over 910 pages long, with what i think is far too much information at times. I'd safely put my money on it rather than make assumptions. A strong reliable source (in my eyes anyways) has definately stated them as counties, which takes presidence over any assumptions we may believe. Though a statement such as stating that such status is questionable could be added in if a source backs up such a statement. Mabuska (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article cites p.233: what does it say on p.233? You quoted what the 1590 map says: is that the only reference in the 1996 book?  That book apparently has 302 pages; you don't quote anything from a 910-page book. jnestorius(talk) 10:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Parliamentary Gazetteer of 1846 (Vol 3, p.447) states "Previous to the flight and attainder of O'Neill, Tyrone was divided into the districts of North Tyrone and South Tyrone; but, about the period of 'the plantation of Ulster,' North Tyrone was transferred to the county of Londonderry." "District" is not "county". jnestorius(talk) 10:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh wait i'm getting my sources mixed up here, your right the 1996 source (still in print) is only 302 pages, i got mixed up with Jonathan Bardon's A History of Ulster which is 910+ pages (ISBN 0-85640-764-X). I didn't quote what the map says as it doesn't show the map, i quoted what the book says. The source in question is from the Northern Ireland Place-Name Project, Department of Celtic, The Queen's University Belfast. The books research group includes; Professor Gerard Stockman, Fiachra Mac Gabhann NA, Dr Patrick McKay, Dr Kay Muhr, Michael B. O Mainnin MA, and Dr Gregory Toner. The volume of the book i have concentrates on place-names in most of the barony of Loughinsholin, however at the end in its appendixes gives overviews and details of baronies, counties etc. and i'd still safely hedge my money on it seeing it was reseaerched by more than one academic.


 * And what is the Gazetteers defintion of a district? The barony of Loughinsholin which was part of Tyrone and then transferred to the new Londonderry consisted of four districts; Glenconkeyne, Tomlagh, Killetra, and Clandonnell. North and South Tyrone whilst meaning virtually the same as Nether and Upper Tyrone are not explicitly stated as being such so that source can't be used to discredit the notion. The Gazetter doesn't even make mention of the barony of Loughinsholin which was the only part of Tyrone transferred to the new county - surely the barony which was still an official unit at the time of the Gazetters publication would of stated it. Mabuska (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I agree that the 1590 map shows Nether Tyrone and Upper Tyrone as separate counties. But the map might be wrong. I have read several history books which describe the 1590 maps and mention that it makes an Upper-Nether Tyrone division, and I have not interpreted those history books as implying that the map was accurate in that respect.  I have no access to the 1996 book, but it seems to me that it might also describe the 1590 map without implying that the map is accurate.  I am not questioning the authority of the 1996 authors; I am questioning your interpretation of what they have stated.  If the only evidence you have of the existence of separate counties is the 1590 map, that is quite weak evidence. If you  have other evidence, I would like to hear about it.  BTW Loughinsholin is in the Gazetteer (Volume 2 (D-M) p.695) but unfortunately is missing from the Google Books scan. jnestorius(talk) 12:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The book and the rest of the volumes are still on sale in good quantity in good bookstores. I quoted exactly what they stated about the map: Antrym, Armagh, Colrane, Downe, Manahan, Farmanaugh, Terconnel, and Upper and Nether Tyrone as the names of counties. They state nothing about its reliability or anything but that the map lists those as counties. I'm basing my input on the words of what those historians stated, not the map. Do you have evidence that says they were definately not counties, even if they maybe lasted only a few years if that? We could add a note that its uncertain whether or not they where proper counties or not. Mabuska (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially you are relying on a single WP:primary source, namely the map. All we can really say with confidence is "Francis Jobson, who was commissioned to survey central Ulster in 1590-1, produced several maps depicting Nether Tyrone and Upper Tyrone as separate counties". Without further evidence we cannot assert that those counties had any existence beyond that map. Around 1590, Hugh O'Neill was negotiating with the English about the introduction of shire rule in his territory; Tyrone's Rebellion: The Outbreak of the Nine Years War in Tudor Ireland [ISBN 0851156835], after describing these negotiations says "In the summer of 1591 the county of Tyrone was delimited, divided into eight baronies, and Dungannon was appointed county town. The significant inclusion of O'Cahan's country prevented earlier plans for its separate creation as the county of Coleraine." (p.76) "Michaelmas 1592 had seen the first introduction of sherrifs with Cormac Mac Baron being appointed for Tyrone and Sir Oghy O'Hanlon for Armagh" (pp.151-2) Coleraine was created in 1603. No mention of Upper or Nether Tyrone, but it seems to me that Jobson's map was drawn up at the time the negotiations were ongoing and was necessarily speculative.  Regarding Jobson's map Baptista Boazio and R. Dunlop (1905) say "As a first attempt to describe a hitherto very imperfectly explored country the map is not without value, but it possesses all the drawbacks inherent in Jobson's clumsy style, of which a lack of preciseness is the chief." If you can access a copy of Shapes of Ireland: maps and their makers 1564-1839 [ISBN 0906602955] it probably has more information. jnestorius(talk) 20:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think that seeing as a source has declared them as being noted as counties it shouldn't be casually cast aside. A note reference or a explanatory statement in the section should be given detailing the uncertainties relating to Nether and Upper Tyrones actual status and the arguement that they are more than likely where never proper counties. Both sides should be mentioned for neutrality and equalness. Mabuska (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Statements about uncertainty are inappropriate if they refer to the uncertainty of us Wikipedians rather than unceertainty among external authorities. I think "Francis Jobson, who was commissioned to survey central Ulster in 1590-1, produced several maps depicting Nether Tyrone and Upper Tyrone (and Coleraine) as separate counties" says as much as we can currently stand over and would suggest putting it in the article (with references, of course). If you or I or someone else finds more information later, it can be reworked then. jnestorius(talk) 13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Francis Jobson, who was commissioned to survey central Ulster in 1590-1, produced several maps depicting Nether Tyrone and Upper Tyrone as separate counties" <- would work better as we have sources that clearly depict Coleraine as a county without his maps. Mabuska (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We do, but we also have sources that view "Upper Tyrone" as synonymous with Londonderry/Coleraine, so it is worth showing that Jobson was not one of those. jnestorius(talk) 18:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen very few sources make mention of Upper and Nether Tyrone full stop to be honest county-wise or not, and even less maps. Coleraine's predecessor O'Cahans Country was a minor-kingdom of Tir Eoghain according to some sources, and no doubt it may well be synonymous with Upper Tyrone (in the greater Tyrone rather than main Tyrone area), however with the creation of County Coleraine, was it even still be considered as such? Mabuska (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The following seems to me to prove that the prospective counties were never created:
 * Unlike earlier authorities, including Jobson, Bartlett makes no distinction between upper and lower Tyrone, from which at one time it had been proposed to make two separate counties.
 * jnestorius(talk) 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * jnestorius(talk) 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Case closed then. Mabuska (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Donegal in Ulster?
According to both Provinces of Ireland and County Donegal, it is. But the map on this page seems to give it the darker green of the Republic of Ireland. (There also appears to be some unexplained confusion on the latter page.) No expert I, and I should probably do some more reading, but maybe someone else can weigh in or correct as needed.Czrisher (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The province of Ulster consists of nine counties. Six of those counties are in Northern Ireland. Three are in the Republic of Ireland. County Donegal is one of the three counties of Ulster that are in the Republic of Ireland. --&mdash; RA (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ulster isn't a country thats why Donegal is shown as part of the Republic of Ireland.


 * The maps show the counties in relation to the two current political entities on the island; the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Whilst the map does include provincial boundaries, the provinces are not current political entities but historical entities. The county map in the Ulster article shows the county in relation to the historical province.


 * The maps need updated anyways. For some wierd reason they don't happen to include the portions of Wales that are on the source map used. Mabuska (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Copperfastened
I know all about WP:ENGVAR and such, but copperfastened is a word that took a bit of work to dig up a definition. I have a relatively large vocabulary, including most vernacular in various English dialects, but that stumped me. I couldn't even figure it out through context. Couldn't we just change it to "agreement?" An article should be somewhat accessible to all English speakers, even us dumb Americans. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Be bold and just change it. If anyone objects they can revert. Mabuska (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen what happens to people who dare edit any articles on Ireland.  :)   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that. If someone has an issue they'll revert it meaning you discuss it then - however i don't really think this is one of those edits to worry about :-) Mabuska (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only just seen this note but had earlier changed it to "made permanent" as I also had found the term to be unsatisfactory. Though in the case of Ireland, is anything really permanen ;-) Laurel Lodged (talk)

Exclusions from alpha list.
Who says the list is only for so-called traditional counties? The article is about Counties of Ireland. Fingal is a county so it deserves to be in the list. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The second colum is named "traditional county" and has been for quite a while. Fingal, Dún Laoghaire, South Dublin, N Tipperary and S Tipperary belong in the far right colum with all the other administrativ divisions.
 * It's misleading to put County Dublin in the same colum as Fingal/Dún Laoghaire/South Dublin and to put County Tipperary in the same colum N Tipperary/S Tipperary. ~Asarlaí 00:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The second column can be re-labelled to "County". A clarifying line can se added to introduce the table to indicate that it contains a mix of current and so-called traditional counties. That should solve the ptroblem I think. Laurel Lodged (talk)
 * It would be wiser to put them (Fingal, Dún Laoghaire, South Dublin, N Tipperary, S Tipperary) in a table of their own, named "modern administrative counties". They hav no existence beyond administration—unlike the traditional counties, which also exist in a cultural and sporting context. ~Asarlaí 12:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You attribute functions to the so-called traditional counties that have no basis in law. It is not the remit of counties to be the framework for cultural and sporting organisations. Counties, traditional or otherwise, have only one function - to be the geographic demarkation for the administration of justice and /or taxes and /or local government. This has been their function from their foundation to the present day. To say that the area demarkated as Fingal has the function of administration while the area demarkated as Mayo does not have that function is false. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The 26-county state is made-up of 26 traditional counties (which ar purely cultural) and 35 administrativ divisions (some of which ar named 'counties'). They arn't the same and they don't hav the same borders. For example, the traditional county of Galway includes the city of Galway; the administrativ 'county' of Galway doesn't include the city. ~Asarlaí 14:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We could always split the article into two halves: traditional and modern, or something similar. Mabuska (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Either way, the two shouldn't be shown as if they'r the same.
 * When you think about it, we wouldn't be in this mess if the government had just named them "districts" or "council areas". ~Asarlaí 18:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Asarlai's second comment. But we are where we are. Pretending that we are not in that ambiguous position is not the way forward. Perhaps Mabuska's suggestion has merit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think a table of their known, named "Modern administrative counties", is the way forward. JonC Talk 09:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mayo is a so-called traditional county. Its boundaries also demarkate the remit of Mayo County Council. So that makes it a so-called "Modern administrative county" as well. Which means that it would have to feature in both tables - no? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'v made a table of the modern administrativ counties. Tell me what you think. ~Asarlaí 16:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad start. The column "County seat" should now be dropped from the traditional table. If they're being releagated to a cultural role, then county seat has no bearing on it as that is only used for local government. The lead to the new table needs to be amended so that the geographic boundaries of the "modern" counties are read as being indeed the boundaries of counties. At the moment it gives the impression that the boundary only refers to the remit of the relevant local authority. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would favour making this page just about the 32 counties, and moving the 29 counties to another page, refactored from Local government in the Republic of Ireland. jnestorius(talk) 06:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not support this move. It would tend to support the erroneous notion that the 29 counties in the state at present are "only" used for the purposes of demarcating local authority areas. That is, the move would tend to support the erroneous notion that they are not "really" counties, just some makey-upy thing in current legislation. If so, then this faulty reasoning needs to be strangled at birth. At one level of course, all counties are used for the purposes of demarcating local authority areas (whether they be Norman barons or county councils). An article separation then would have the effect of introducing a division where no such logical division exists. Lastly, the Local govt article talks about entities that have nothing to do with counties, so that would be another good reason not to proceed. Really the whole motivation for this move hinges on an irredentist agenda - the myth that there was, is and always will be a 32 county Ireland. Things change, folks, it's time to accept that fact. And I don't just mean the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern is not that the 32 are given priority over the 29; it is that the two concepts be distinguished. It does not make sense to lump Dublin and Fingal into the same grouping; they belong to two different groupings. They are already half-distinguished by being in separate lists; I believe they should be fully distinguished by being in separate pages. I don't mean to suggest that one group "deserves", as it were, the "main" title "Counties of Ireland" and the other should be "relegated" elsewhere.
 * Maybe Counties of Ireland should be a DAB page:
 * Traditional counties of Ireland (most of the current Counties of Ireland would be moved there; cf. Historic counties of England)
 * Counties of the Republic of Ireland (would redirect to, say, Administrative counties and cities of the Republic of Ireland, refactored from parts of Local government in the Republic of Ireland together with Counties of Ireland and Counties of Ireland)
 * Counties of Northern Ireland, maybe in the "See also" section rather than the main list.
 * Gaelic Athletic Association county in the "See also" section
 * jnestorius(talk) 05:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"County seat" vs "county town"
I and Google both feel that "county town" is far more common than "county seat" in relation to Ireland: jnestorius(talk) 06:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not something that greatly exercises me. But I suppose that some consistency is best. If it's good enough for Google, it's good enough for me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)