Talk:Lordship of Ireland

Flag
Where does the source of the flag come from? Was there one or is it used here as a convenience? --sony-youth talk 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a few searches but it appears that Lordship did not have a specific flag and seeing it was a possession of the Kingdom of England St Georges Flag is used by default. -- Barry   entretien  02:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found several sources that put the Three Crowns/flag of Munster as the flag of the Lordship of Ireland:
 * GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
 * Seven Bros
 * Celtia.info
 * Flags of the World
 * European Rugby Cup
 * Tripod website
 * There's more like these but granted no authoritative source.
 * While, of course it was a possession of England, this would not mean that it would share the same flag as they were politically seperate. --sony-youth talk 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Folks - clear up some confusion: the emblem of the Harp as shown would not be the same as the emblem employed by the English- they would have used a Harp with a Crown- the Irish would not of course use the Crown -so you havethe Harp sans Crown used by the President of the Republic. Coinage issued by the English and later by the Irish reflects this usage: the harp with crown by the English, and Irish issued coinage with the harp less the crown. The flag with the three crowns is of course the flag of the province of Munster, I do not know if the English ever used it for their Lordship of Ireland scenario, which of course which was honoured more in the breach rather the observance by the King's very nominal Irish subjects --86.43.99.51 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources for the Three Crowns/Munster flag are above. A more authoritative source mentioning the same (although as arms, not as a flag) is here. That source says that the crowned harp was introduced by Elizabeth I who "used a crowned harp as badge for Ireland in her second Great Seal of 1586" and that Azure a harp or was attributed to Ireland at least in 1280 (during the Lordship). Elizabeth was way after the Lordship of Ireland, and I don't think her Great Seal would affect the arms of Ireland anyway. --sony-youth talk 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have been the personal flag of Henry, marked for a younger (cadet) son in 1185. Two leopards on a red field. The harped flag (crownless or not) was not used before the 1300s. We may like to think in 2007 that it was "honoured in the breach", but in fact we don't know. Let's not make it up.Red Hurley 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've come across more support for the Three Corwns representing the Lordship. (Personally, I would be suspect of a personal standard being the arms of a state. The Lordship wasn't a personal posession.) However, I'm not coming across anything that would put the harp as the arms for the Lordship. I cannot agree with Red that the harp didn't exist at this time - we have a source that puts it existing as the arms of the "Kings of Ireland" in 1280. Presumably it existed for at least some time before then, but who those "Kings of Ireland" are is the crunch question. If it the "Kings" referred to here were the rulers of the Lordship of Ireland then the harp was clearly the arms of the Lordship. However, I suspect not. Most sources put Henry VII's use of it as "new." So, these "kings" would, in my opinion, more likely be the the Gaelic kings.


 * I have however come across a reasonable explaination for why the Three Crowns stoped being used (and may hint at why they were use to being with). One source says "that the three crowns were replaced with the harp by Henry VIII, in case they were mistaken for the Papal tiara." So, just as he wanted to change the title from Lordship to Kingdom to fend off encroachment of the Pope, it appears he did the same with the symbols of the state.


 * (Incidentally, I have also come across something quite surprising which I am going to post to Talk:Kingdom of Ireland. ATQ Stewart says the following on Henry VIII in The Shape of Irish History: "Ireland was given a new green flag and the harp as its national symbol." Unfortuneately, he was not more about this "green flag." However, this got me thinking, was this the Green Flag of the kind associated with 1798? Certainly, the Saltaire (the flag currently appearing on the Kingdom of Ireland article) was in no way a flag of that Kingdom (it was coined only 20 years before the end of that state - and even then as a flag for the Order of St. Patrick NOT the kingdom. The Green Flag was used certainly as a naval jack during the KoI and was was hugely popular. It is attributed as the flag of Ireland by rolls in 1600's. In fact there are may references to it being the "flag of Ireland" during the period of the Kingdom, some putting English flag upper right corner. Before this period, blue appears to have been the "colour of Ireland" whereas afterwards green becomes so. For Henty VIII to change from the "flag of Munster" to the "flag of Leinster" also has some sense to it.) --sony-youth talk 09:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally an authorative source: "Our readers will observe that the arms which for many hundred years after the Conquest were borne by the whole of Ireland are now borne by the Province of Munster alone. In the time of Edward the IV. a Commission was held to enquire into the arms of Ireland, which Commission returned that 'yt ye three Crownes were ye armes,'" The Arms of Ireland, Rev. JFM French


 * See pages 19-21 for a full explaination.


 * However, it appears that the Harp had a strong association with Ireland such that "when Henry the VIII placed a harp instead of three crowns on the Irish shield he may have only called into requisition a well known Irish badge or crest, which would on that account be the more readily accepted ... [such that] the adoption of the harp as the badge of Ireland was a decided success, and has proved equally acceptable to all parties in the State." --sony-youth talk 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A clearer description of the use of the harp:


 * Not so long ago it was generally believed that the inclusion of the harp in the arms and coinage of Ireland dated only from the reign of Henry VIII., but the fact is that the national instrument appears on coins issued by King John and Edward I.; and, in 1251, we read that "the new coinage was stamped in Dublin with the impression of the King's head in a triangular harp." A harp was originally the peculiar device of the arms of the Leinster province, and it was subsequently applied to the whole kingdom of Ireland-namely, in heraldic language, 'on a field vert, a harp or, stringed argent.'" - from Medieval Harps and Harpers --sony-youth talk 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The three crowns appeared ontop of each other, like in this coin; not like today's flag of Munster. It was changed to the harp under Henry VIII, supposedly because the three crowns look like a papal tiara. A rose ontop of a sun seems to feature on some coins too. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the coat of arms, it looks great. But—just a suggestion—maybe it should use the same shades of blue and gold as the KOI arms? ~Asarlaí 07:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

further cleanup
Added surrender & regrant. Removed Henry viii's excommunication (he wasn't / relationship veered from obedience to strong dislike). Henry burnt protestants at the stake; hated Luther and the Papacy.Red Hurley 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
I propose we merge Norman Ireland + Anglo and Gaelic Ireland 1367–1536 into this article. All three articles cover the exact same period and thus there's a lot of duplicated information. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 02:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. On the logic that 1+1+1 > 3. Mergeing the three would make for a better overall article IMHO. Norman Ireland could in time be spun out again into its own article. I don't get what the "Anglo-Gaelic Ireland" article is about. There is another article, Gaelic Ireland, that I think deserves to be left separate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge, the first one certainly. It might be useful to have an overview article for this Gaelic kingdoms which never became part of the Lordship. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The dates given on the Gaelic Ireland article extend as far as the Battle of Kinsale (past the LOI even into the KOI). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're agreed then? Merging Norman Ireland + Lordship of Ireland shouldn't be hard, but I'm not sure what to do with the other one. ~Asarlaí 07:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge it with Gaelic Ireland is my 2¢? It hasn't been substantially changed since its first edits in 2005. I think it's purpose has since been overtaken by the Gaelic Ireland article, particularly the secton post-the Norman invasion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Gaelic Ireland + Anglo and Gaelic Ireland 1367–1536 have been merged. ~Asarlaí 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lordship of Ireland, the official English title which the English called their claimed lands in Ireland by, sounds like late medieval Ireland - all of it - has just been thrown into a nice and neat English framework. That is ahistorical by any standards, even in the Pale, to say nothing of Tir Chónaill, Conamara or the vast majority of Ireland which was not under English rule. For an inclusive title, Late Medieval Ireland would be better. 86.44.17.226 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:History of Ireland where I have put forward an alternative proposal that "Norman Ireland" be moved to "History of Ireland 1169-1536". Scolaire (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Irish history series
I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland. --RA (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Title
Is Lord of Ireland a peerage title or feudal title ?

Siyac 11:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyac (talk • contribs)

Royal style Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in lead
I am removing the following sentence from the lead, as every part of it is inaccurate or plain wrong: It was never governed by the parliament, it was governed by the Lord Lieutenant and his deputy. The Pale only existed for part of its life, the House of Plantagenet for only a short part and the Angevin Empire for only a very short part. I can't say whether it was explicitly a fief of the Angevin Empire, but I don't think it was. Scolaire (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was governed from the Pale by the Parliament of Ireland and was a fief of the Angevin Empire, with the Lord of Ireland coming from the House of Plantagenet.

First sentence
The first sentence underwent a couple of changes recently. It currently says "The Lordship of Ireland...refers to Ireland under the rule of the king of England". I don't think that is correct. In any book I've looked at, Ireland is referred to simply as Ireland. "The Lordship of Ireland", strictly speaking, was only a title granted by Henry II to his son John, and retained by his successors. This is the sense in which it is used in most history books. In the wider sense, it refers to the English claim to lordship over Ireland, or to English institutions in Ireland. These varied widely over the course of 400 years between extensive and purely theoretical outside the Pale. The Kingdom of Ireland was different because it was entirely under English rule, and subject to the king, for the whole of its history. But the important point is that even contemporary English documents, or 19th century imperialist histories, don't use "The Lordship of Ireland" to refer to Ireland. A better phrasing is needed for the opening sentence. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Old Norse and other non-irish languages
In many websites and Wikipedia articles, they have said that the Norse in Ireland had become assimilated with the Irish, both linguistically and culturally. They certainly contributed to Irish culture and civilizationn, fouding the first urban institutions in Ireland but was Old Norse still spoken after 1171? Abrawak (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How widely was French, English and any other settler languages spoken? Abrawak (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Norse may still have been spoken in urban centres, such as Dublin and Waterford - but it died away in the century or so there after. English was the official language of the Lordship. Irish was spoken by the vast majority. French (or Old Norman) was the native language of the Norman invaders. The tendency of the settlers to become more Irish than the Irish themselves (and speak Irish) necessitated the passing of the Statutes of Kilkenny, which required the subjects of the king to speak English (not Irish). --Tóraí (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

About the 'Gaelic Ireland" label
In every single Wikipedia pages (except this one), the image sections of predecessing and sucessing polities would be left empty if it doesn't have an unanimous representation, or doesn't have a representation at all (like in this case). It is a universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia. It is forgivable for users putting disputed flag/coat of arms in the image section, but insisting to type words in that section while that polity doesn't have a flag at all…the name of that polity is rather short so it's possible to fit in those words for this case, but there are also plenty of articles that have long names, it's thus infeasible to use words as representations, therefore the section should be left blank under universal practiceIn every single Wikipedia pages (except this one), the image sections of predecessing and sucessing polities would be left empty if it doesn't have an unanimous representation, or doesn't have a representation at all (like in this case). It is a universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia. It is forgivable for users putting disputed flag/coat of arms in the image section, but insisting to type words in that section while that polity doesn't have a flag at all…the name of that polity is rather short so it's possible to fit in those words for this case, but there are also plenty of articles that have long names, it's thus infeasible to use words as representations, therefore the section should be left blank under universal practice. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't have it as you left it, which is Gaelic Ireland linked through a blanked out box. That just looks ridiculous. I agree the words aren't ideal, but it's better than that until a symbol can be found: an illustration from the Book of Kells perhaps? Or may be it should be completely blank with no wikilink. DeCausa (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (copied from my talk page) Gaelic Ireland isn't a polity, it's a period of Irish history. Personal, I would rather only have polities in the successors/predecessors. Anyway, I disagree with the "universal common practice", words are better then no representation at all. Not sure why they wouldn't fit. Rob984 (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to DeCausa. Now we can take away the wikilink then. Pktlaurence (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland infoboxes handle a similar problem by showing a downward pointing arrow which takes you to a word list of the predecessor kingdoms later in the infobox. The problem with that for this article is that the Lordship of Ireland was quite an amorphous concept. It claimed to be a lordship of the whole island, but it only de facto replaced the Irish rulers in The Pale or at most the Irish rulers replaced by the Anglo-Norman lords, who then often didn't accept the Lordship of Ireland. Many independent Irish kingdoms continued after the creation of the Lordship eg the the last King of Thomond gave up his crown only with the creation of the Kingdom of Ireland. The Kingdom of Desmond outlived the lordship to the 1590s. It's not clear-cut which Irish kingdoms would be predecessors and which would not. DeCausa (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For that very reason it would not be suitable, in this infobox, to have a down-arrow pointing to an arbitrary list of kingdoms, some of which may not even have Wikipedia articles. Also, it is not true to say that we "can't have...Gaelic Ireland linked through a blanked out box." It doesn't look "ridiculous". I happen to have been involved in a quite fraught RfC concerning the infobox at Goryeo, but nobody in the discussion batted an eye at the blanked-out box pointing to Taebong. And Taebong, in turn, has blanked-out boxes for both the predecessor and the successor states. I don't know about "every single Wikipedia page" or "universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia" (I wasn't there for that), but certainly there is precedent for using the blanked-out box, and I agree with Pktlaurence that a space that was intended for icons should not contain text instead. The blanked-out box is no less meaningful to the uninitiated than a harp on a blue background, and clicking on either brings you to the relevant article (or hovering over it gives you the title, if that's all you need). I favour restoring Pkt's edits on this and the Kingdom of Ireland article. Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For my part, I would oppose that option. It looks amateurish and as though there is a screen error. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "a space that was intended for icons should not contain text instead", why? The space fits the text fine. I'm not quite sure why it's bolded, but otherwise it looks fine to me. Only issue is consistency, however a blank box really doesn't seem much like a precedence, but rather a shortfall in the original design. Also, text is used at the bottom of the infobox when there is a larger number of predecessor. See Kingdom of England for example. Text isn't regarded as infeasible in that instance. Rob984 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for pointing out the fact Scholaire. In fact that blank boxes is a universal common practice that exists in ALL Wikipedia pages (you can find them even just by picking an arbitrary article, e.g. Kingdom of Axum) and NONE of them use words except for this two articles. If blank boxes make you guys feel uncomfortable, I can tell you that using words looks EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS. If you you guys think blank boxes are ridiculous, maybe you should try to read more other articles and get used to it. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa I think it's rather the opposite that blank-box-phobia is a symptom for amateurs LOL. As only amateurish wikipedians that reads few articles do not know that all articles (except the two) uses blank box. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, your not justifying it, just claiming: it's the "common practice" so it's better. DeCausa has already expressed that they think the blank box looks "amateurish and as though there is a screen error".
 * Also, your manner is pretty insulting. Please be civil.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Rob984 I thought I have already answered your question. (Copied from your talk page)…What matters is that the 'universal common practice' doesn't come without a reason. I can guarantee that the Lordship of Ireland (together with the Kingdom of Ireland) is the ONLY polity article that used words in the predecessing/sucessing section, and ALL THE OTHERS just leave it blank. Blank boxes existed in plenty of articles and for a very long period of time, and theIR existences are just NORMAL and FINE. The problem of using words is that many articles have long names and if you use your method you'll have to cram a train of words into that small space. You may argue that in the case of Gaelic Ireland, the name is short enough to be crammed in, but THE ACT OF CRAMMING ITSELF IS ALREADY WRONG IN PRINCIPLE. Besides, FORMAT and UNIFORMITY plays a CRUCIAL role in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just by 'looking and feeling fine'. Besides, I can tell you that it is definitely a precedence (if you don't trust me go for Goryeo and Kingdom of Axum). Please read every comments in talk pages carefully. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I thought I have already expressed contrarily that I think that the unfamiliarity of blank boxes is amateurish LOL. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected a mistake and sorry for the typo.Pktlaurence (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it fit? And how is it any more crammed then the flags? If there are more then 4 predecessors the text is shown regardless in a section at the bottom. It isn't "crammed" at Kingdom of England so why is it "crammed" here? Rob984 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't matter. If you're getting agitated then take a breather. Otherwise, assume good faith and be civil. Sorry if you feel like I'm patronising you but I'm not going to try to reason with you if you behave like that. Rob984 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if Pktlaurence could moderate his tone a bit, but that is not the issue. What we appear to have is, on one side, two people saying that the blanked-out box is used in other infoboxes on WP, with links to examples, and on the other, two people saying "it looks amateurish and as though there is a screen error", with no links to examples of where text is used in place of icons on other articles. To me, that looks like a policy-based argument being opposed by an emotional argument. Scolaire (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't cited any policy: "used in other infoboxes" isn't a policy (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?). In fact, WP:MOS says "style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia." The more substantive point is that it shouldn't be linked to Gaelic Ireland whatever the visual representation. That's not a predecesor state/polity. Furthermore, Gaelic Ireland existed before and after (even thrived after) the establishment of the Lordship. The least ahistorical solution is for their to be no predecessor. DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. To be more precise it would be a 'rational' argument against an emotional argument. Despite being emotional or rational, the reason of some Wikipedians are unused to blank boxes is because that they read to few article, which are the ones being truly amateurish LOL. Back to the topic, the reason it doesn't fit is stated in my previous comments: (…The problem of using words is that many articles have long names and if you use your method you'll have to cram a train of words into that small space. You may argue that in the case of Gaelic Ireland, the name is short enough to be crammed in, but THE ACT OF CRAMMING ITSELF IS ALREADY WRONG IN PRINCIPLE. Besides, FORMAT and UNIFORMITY plays a CRUCIAL role in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just by 'looking and feeling fine'.) The PRINCIPLE is that many articles have long names and using words will be infeasible. Even in the case of Gaelic Ireland that using words is feasible, looks fine, feels fine, … or whatever, it is still a fluke (that the name is short enough for cramming) and cramming is still AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE. To be simple (with you), the principle is against word-cramming (and using blank boxes instead), and all the other articles are following, so should this two. At last, responding to your accusations that I'm agitated, who started the name-calling of 'amateurish'? Now who's in need for a breather and some 'patronising', eh? Pktlaurence (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa Well I partially agree with you. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is valid only when an individual (sometimes atypical) example is used as a stock of argument, but in this case my argument is based on a typical style that is used on almost all of the articles of this type in Wikipedia. However, I agree to your point and solution and your statement about the nature of Gaelic Ireland. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've haven't called anyone names I don't think? Where did I call you 'amateurish'?
 * You completely ignored my comment. I still don't see how it's cramped here or would be cramped anywhere else. It's not cramped at Kingdom of England where five predecessors are represented by text.
 * I think we all agree that Gaelic Ireland should be removed as a predecessor here, but the issue still remains at Kingdom of Ireland. That entity did end Gaelic political and social order in Ireland.
 * Rob984 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody except you has called anyone 'amateurish'. You seem to have misinterpreted DeCausa's comment. Rob984 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a discussion for this article, but the establishment of the Kingdom of Ireland didn't end the Gaelic political social order. That changed very little. It was ended 50 years later in the Elizabethan Conquest (which, in WP has the non-COMMONNAME of Tudor conquest of Ireland and wrapped up with the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Pktlaurance, Wikipedia is absolutely stuffed full of complete trash. What's done in other articles is never a good argument for me. Kingdom of Aksum is a case in point. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So (and granted I didn't cite policy, but I at least showed precedent), does anybody know of other articles that use text rather than icons (including empty boxes) in their infoboxes? Also, I think it's a bit premature to say there's a consensus for removing Gaelic Ireland from the field altogether. That should be the subject of a separate thread, and there should be notice of that new thread at the WikiProject Ireland talk page to generate enough input to get a genuine consensus. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the discussions moved on from that. Three of us here seem to agree that deleting Gaelic Ireland altogether is more appropriate. DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Rob984 Sorry for forgetting your point. By responding to that, I will have to say in all the Wikipedia articles, when there are more than three predecessing/sucessing polities, a space will appear in the bottom of the infobox, which is much larger than the original space and therefore is big enough for words. You'd be quite …em… amateurish if you haven't noticed that. Besides, I don't think I've got anything wrong about DeCausa calling me 'amateurish', and the fact that you have quoted from it. Pktlaurence (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa Casually accusing other articles as 'trash' seems quite…em…'amateurish' to me. Still, I agree to you if your point about that Gaelic Ireland didn't end at the establishment of the Kingdom of Ireland is true, and I'm for removing the Gaelic Ireland link for once and for all. Pktlaurence (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now that our divergences still exists, but at least up to this moment most of us agreed that the Gaelic Ireland label is to be completely removed as a predecessor. Let's do this. Pktlaurence (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"three of us seeming to agree" does not make a consensus. I oppose its removal, therefore there is no consensus. Either start a proper discussion, and notify other potentially interested parties so that a proper consensus can be established, or leave it alone. no, let's not do this just yet. Scolaire (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it curious that somebody who is not even registered is such an expert on wiki norms and policies (apart from WP:civil)? Scolaire is correct - no consensus exists to remove "Gaelic Ireland". The Kingdom of England lists several predecessor states, some of which only have text and no emblem. That's precedent enough for me for the use of text. However, to fully replicate it would involve the appending of dozens of states in the case of Gaelic Ireland. This does not seem practical to me. I am therefore leaning towards a solution involving no emblem and just a link to Gaelic Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear why you feel the need to adopt that tone. Where did I say there was a consensus? And what's a "proper discussion". And "notify" what interested parties? And why? Most of us participating in this thread so far have put forward the view that "Gaelic Ireland" is inappropriate as a "predecessor". That's what I mean by the discussion hasd moved on. Anyone who wishes to can participate in this thread to voice their opinion, there is no need to open a "proper discussion" (whatever that means) nor is there any need to notify anyone. Obviously there's nothing stopping you doing that if you wish to (abiding by WP:CANVASS of course). This is business as usual run-of-the-mill stuff. (Btw, the mere fact that you object doesn't mean that there can't be a WP:CONSENSUS for it). DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One of us has misunderstood the other. I said, "I think it's a bit premature to say there's a consensus for removing Gaelic Ireland from the field altogether. That should be the subject of a separate thread, and there should be notice of that new thread at the WikiProject Ireland talk page to generate enough input to get a genuine consensus." You replied, "I think the discussions moved on from that. Three of us here seem to agree that deleting Gaelic Ireland altogether is more appropriate." I took that to mean, "The matter is decided; three of us have agreed so it's going." And, sure enough, after you posting that, Pktlaurence said "let's do it", and did it. Did I misunderstand you? If so, what on earth did "the discussion's moved on" mean? If I have just made a statement of opinion then that is where the discussion is – it has not moved on. And yes, the fact that I object does mean there is not a consensus. Three editors against one is a majority but not a consensus. To answer your other questions, a wider discussion is needed because a lot of editors have built this article up over a number of years, and changing something of long standing just because three editors who happen to be looking at it at the same time agree to change it is not, to my mind, a collegiate way of editing. Posting notice of the discussion on relevant forums is a way to improve the chance that some of those interested editors will see it, and offer an opinion. Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors have built up a lot of articles over a number of years. There's nothing special or different about that, and it doesn't provide a reason why 3 editors can't agree to change an article in those circumstances. No doubt, if there are objections by other editors not currently participating it will get reverted. 3 editors making a change doesn't mean what was there before is lost forever. There's absolutely no need to post on "relevant forums", and absolutely no problem if that is done. This is basic stuff that goes on day in day out across WP and your over-sensitivity is very puzzling. As far as me saying the discussion has moved on is concerned, I was referring to the first part of your post. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! That explains it. As I said, I thought it was referring to my belief that the thing shouldn't be deleted without further discussion, and as such it seemed quite dismissive. That's why I was "sensitive" about it. Anyway, we now seem to have three editors who believe that Gaelic Ireland should be retained, and that it should be represented by an empty box, so the discussion deems to have come full circle. Scolaire (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ta da! Guys, I guess I've come up with a new solution by using the link of History of Ireland (800–1169), which I think is more historically accurate and can fulfill all of our requirements. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the argument is that we need a predecessor. Rather that the Lordship of Ireland replaced "Gaelic political and social order" in the area that it occupied, hence succeeding it. Gaelic Ireland isn't a polity, but it is still about a period of "political order". History of Ireland (800–1169) is a about a "period in the history of Ireland". Therefore I don't see how that is a appropriate at all. I'm impartial to whether Gaelic Ireland is shown, but definitely opposed to History of Ireland (800–1169). Rob984 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK that would be fine. Now let's get back to the topic. I agree to points of Laurel Lodged. And now, besides me, scholaire and Laurel, who's in for 'the solution involving no emblem and just a link to Gaelic Ireland'? Pktlaurence (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to see the problem with text, other than that it's uncommon: Rob984 (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For example, what looks better at Kingdom of Northumbria: this, this, or this? In my opinion, the former two clearly look better, and not at all "cramped". Also, as in the second example, we can force the overflow box at the bottom to display with "|p5 = &#8203&#59;", so that's another option. Rob984 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Laurel Lodged: Sorry for missing your comments. I agree to your point that'We now seem to have three editors who believe that Gaelic Ireland should be retained, and that it should be represented by an empty box, so the discussion deems to have come full circle.' I think that's the end of the discussion. That's great. Pktlaurence (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And two editors believe that should Gaelic Ireland be retained, it should be represented by text. I'm not sure how you have determined consensus for those edits. Rob984 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Btw, the mere fact that you object doesn't mean that there can't be a WP:CONSENSUS for it.' 'A lot of editors have built up a lot of articles over a number of years. There's nothing special or different about that, and it doesn't provide a reason why 3 editors can't agree to change an article in those circumstances. No doubt, if there are objections by other editors not currently participating it will get reverted. 3 editors making a change doesn't mean what was there before is lost forever. There's absolutely no need to post on "relevant forums", and absolutely no problem if that is done. This is basic stuff that goes on day in day out across WP.' 'Anyway, we now seem to have three editors who believe that Gaelic Ireland should be retained, and that it should be represented by an empty box, so the discussion deems to have come full circle.' I am fully agreed to these points. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.
 * If your unwilling to resolve the issue then the status quo will remain. If you continue to edit the article without consensus then you will be blocked from editing.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS, quoting DeCausa out of context is not clever, rather the complete opposite. Rob984 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

So, Rob984, the empty box is the default at Kingdom of Northumbria as well? I take it, then, that still nobody has found an example of the text-instead-of-image practice currently used here. Scolaire (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm not aware of any other instances text is used in the same practice currently used here. Other examples where there is no image available use the blank boxes if there's less than 5 prede(suc)cessors and text in the bottom box if there's more then 4 prede(suc)cessors (eg Wessex). Rob984 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Then we should do that here, and you should make your proposals on the template talk page. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FTR, the instructions at Template:Infobox former country say that the fields flag_p1, flag_p2, ... require the "name of image of flag for the state corresponding to p1, p2,..." (emphasis added). It goes on, "If a flag is not found or defined, the default 'flag unknown' image will be shown." This is the "blank box" image. There is no provision for the use of text instead of the "flag unknown" image. It is not reasonable for two editors (or any number of editors) to unilaterally decide to ignore the instructions on a couple of articles, when they are being adhered to elsewhere. The fact that it has been that way for some time is not relevant. Pktlaurence should not have been reverted when he rectified the error. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The documentation doesn't claim that the 'flag unknown' image should be shown if there is no flag, however it does explain the default behaviour. The template does however state "if you have anything other than a flag/banner image to use for a previous/following entity, fill in this field [image_p1/s1]". As for consistency, WP:INFOBOXUSE states "the meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox", it mentions nothing about presentation. There is no "consistency" guideline for the exact reason: it hinders progress. Wikipedia has very few [a limited number of] set conventions due to its constant evolving nature.
 * That it is an "error" is your opinion. Please don't encourage them to edit war again.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The image_p1,image_s1,... fields are specifically for images (e.g. coats of arms). Again, that is made crystal clear in the instructions. I repeat, there is no provision for the use of text instead an image. Talking of "set conventions" is a red herring. There is a de facto convention that the blank box is used when there is no image.
 * And "please don't encourage them to edit war again" is a cheeky way of saying, "don't change my version". It takes two to edit-war, and he didn't start it by reverting you. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The instructions are written for entities with flags or symbols, not periods of political order.
 * There are set conventions, it's called WP:Manual of Style. But so what if it's a "de facto convention"? There was no discussion where it was agreed that a blank box was the best way to represent successors/predecessors without a flag/symbol. You can really describe any practice that is widespread on Wikipedia as a "de facto convention". No reason we have to follow those practices.
 * Rob984 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A Wikpedia "de facto convention"...please! There are vast swathes of Wikpedia that are just an embarrassment. Let's not devolve to the lowest common denominator. If it's not in a policy it means nothing. And what Scolaire wants is not in a policy. How can anyone be proud of the infobox in Kingdom of Aksum for instance. Ultimately, what serves our readers most? Some words that are "unique" or an ugly and bizarre ghost box that a passing reading has to guess that they have to click on to find out why it's there. We're doing what we do to provide useful and usable information not to robotically follow some crass precedent that has never been recognised in policy anyway. Here's the test: what would a schoolkid in Indonesia find more useful when looking at this article: (a) the blank ghost box or (b) the words link "Gaelic Ireland"". Answers on a postcard. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you two don't take your argument to the infobox talk page. If this infobox is such a shining example, why not share it with the rest of the community? Why not show them that the p1s and the s1s need to be changed at Goryeo, Taebong, Kingdom of Aksum, Kingdom of Northumbria and who knows how many others? "There are vast swathes of Wikpedia that are just an embarrassment. Let's not devolve to the lowest common denominator." In other words, everybody is out of step except our Johnny. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And by the way, if it's policy you want, WP:Consensus is a policy. If there is a wiki-wide consensus that the blank box is used in the former countries template when there is no image available, it is not for a small group of editors to decide they'll do it differently on one or two articles. If you disagree with the consensus, take it up on the template talk page. Scolaire (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Consensus? There was no discussion where it was agreed that a blank box was the best way to represent successors/predecessors without a flag/symbol. Does any practice that is widespread have consensus? It may have been considered to have consensus by silence, however this, by definition, is only consensus until it is disputed.
 * WP:CONSENSUS does however state:


 * "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."


 * The current position went 9 months without being contended, and hence the "wiki-wide consensus" by silence was revised "without dispute". Obviously, we currently have no consensus, however "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit
 * There is no guideline that implies widespread practices should be followed in articles. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY:


 * "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures."


 * Rob984 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Scolaire, consensus on the talk page of one article has no bearing on the consensus of the talk page of another article. The only way to affect multiple articles is to have that consensus reflected in a policy. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. An infobox is designed to be used in a particular way. The way it is to be used is set down on the template page. If there is no dissent on the template talk page, and the template is used according to the instructions across the project, then there is a wiki-wide consensus to use the infobox in the way it was intended, as set down in the instructions on the template page. There is no provision for the use of text instead of the "flag unknown" image. If you want it to be changed to allow for text – and apparently you believe that it should be done that way for all affected articles, you should make the case on the template talk page. The fact that the current position went nine months on this article without being contended ceased to be relevant as soon as somebody changed it to the accepted position. You now need to raise the question on the template talk page. Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The template is not designed to show periods of time in the predecessor fields. If you want it to be changed to allow for periods of time "you should make the case on the template talk page". Rob984 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Gaelic Ireland was not a period of time, any more than Anglo-Saxon England was. I've amended the opening of the article accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not even an organised society, let alone a polity. Anglo-Saxon England is not a polity either. There's just terms referring to areas during periods of cultural, social, and political order. Regardless, a "predecessor" is a "thing that has been followed or replaced by another". I'm not sure you could say Gaelic Ireland was "followed or replaced" by the Lordship of Ireland. Also, the author states "There are no strict rules so please exercise caution and common sense when using this feature". I'd think avoiding using a blank box to represent a period prior to the entity is "common sense". Rob984 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, looking at Template:Infobox former country, it says that p1–p5 are the preceding entities, not polities. Of course Gaelic Ireland was an entity. It was a country filled with people who were Gaels. And of course it was the "thing that was followed or replaced" by the Lordship of Ireland. The Normans took the land that comprised Gaelic Ireland and called it the Lordship of Ireland. As for the other matter, "common sense" tells me that neither of us is ever going to convince the other, and it's not worth losing sleep over, so I'm going to let it be. Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It also says "predecessors" and "successors", those have particular meanings in regards to states. Never disputed Gaelic Ireland was an entity. Thank you. Rob984 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Lordship of Ireland image
I feel compelled to point out that the present image in the article is not accurate. It implies that that the Lordship did not claim all Ireland, only certain areas. In fact it covered the entire island. As Katharine Simms has stated "just before and after AD 1300 marks the fullest geographical extent of English authority... In those years there was not a single Irish territory whose chief was not legally subject either to King Edward I, or to an Anglo-Irish earl or baron." (Katharine Simms, “Relations with the Irish”, pp. 66-86, in Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297, edited by James Lydon, Dublin, 1997). Perhaps it would be more accurate if the image noted that this was the maxim extent of Norman settlement? Though even there it is not accurate, implying settlement where there was none (north-western County Mayo, east and south-central Connacht, County Clare, the midlands, etc). Fergananim (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Presumably it merely indicates those territories that recognised the Lordship as its feudal superior, whereas the non pink areas didn't (whatever the Lordship's claim over the whole island was). I doubt that it even indicates areas over which the Lordship exercised effective control. DeCausa (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Fergananim. If the maps shows the extent of the effective control at some time then it needs a label that says that - along with a date and a source. --Tóraí (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a kaleidoscope between 1175 and 1542, as there were hundreds of realities of de facto control. But de jure the lordship happened to remain linked to the kings of England, who would have described themselves as Normans (and not English) in the 1100s and 1200s.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Warring over infobox
I've put a note at Template talk:Infobox former country about the problem with the blank flags in the infobox for previous states. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have tried a text fix for now. Murry1975 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)