User:Crispness/Sandbox

Scolari
Matt Lewis has said above that there has been no "good argument against the package". To get this discussion back on track I'm going to re-state my arguments against, then maybe we can talk about whether it can be saved or how it can be improved:
 * 1) Using "Ireland" - on its own - as a name for the State instead of the island is wrong. The land is ancient, the State is less than 100 years old.  Tourists travelling to Ireland want to see the land and its people, not the government or the civil service.  Business people exporting to Ireland want to know the air and sea routes to the land of Ireland - they may pay duty to the State but they don't care if their goods are consumed by Staters or Northerners.  Students of history are at least as interested in the thousand years before 1922, and the majority of those studying the late 20th century history of "Ireland" will be studying the Northern conflict.  Yes, Britannica uses "Ireland", but the vast bulk of the article is concerned with the land of Ireland, with place-names etc. confined to southern places to give the impression it only applies to the 26 counties.  Does the soil and the climate change when you pass the Killeen border post?  Are the people's skin a different colour?


 * 1) "The island of Ireland" is an absurd name on so many levels. First, it is a the - that's a no-no.  Second, it suggests some small island (Rockall, maybe?) belonging to Ireland.  Third, none of the tourists, business people or historians above have ever heard of this strange land.  The term has some use as a dab e.g. "the biggest mountain/company/chancer on the island of Ireland", but that's it.


 * 1) "Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline." Despite repeatedly asking, I still have no idea what this means.  Apparently IMOS is to be amended, but to say what? "Editors are encouraged to say Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) in all articles to avoid ambiguity"?  "Editors will not be flogged for using Ireland (state) or Ireland (island) because they are now offered as options"?  "Some people think Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) are cool terms so please try to fit them into some article somewhere"?  Why do we need to be "offered" these terms when we know they're there already.  And more to the point, who will benefit from the offer and how - there must be some benefit to somebody if it's to be included in a "package".


 * 1) "Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional 'disambiguating' expression..." Again, why?  Since the expression is used nowhere on Wikipedia - and the idea that we should have it just because Britannica has it is ... well, an underwhelming argument - what is the benefit of adding it to IMOS as an option?  And again, how would it make the "package" more attractive and to whom?


 * 1) Why on earth would we need a separate article on the 'term' "Republic of Ireland"? WP is already top-heavy with articles on "Irish" terms, most of which tell us nothing more than that they are terms used in Ireland.  If you're going to write about the term, write it in the "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" article, or wherever it's moved to, if it's moved.


 * 1) The package as a package: in what way is it bigger or better, more NPOV, more inclusive or more worthy of consensus? How will it, as a package, improve the situation?  I'm afraid I see nothing more than a collection of half-baked and unrelated ideas more likely to create confusion than consensus.

That's my analysis. I would like to see other people's view of the package as a whole, positive or negative. At least then we'll have some idea what it is we're actually discussing. Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Using "Ireland" - on its own - as a name for the State instead of the island is wrong. The land is ancient, the State is less than 100 years old.  Tourists travelling to Ireland want to see the land and its people, not the government or the civil service.  Business people exporting to Ireland want to know the air and sea routes to the land of Ireland - they may pay duty to the State but they don't care if their goods are consumed by Staters or Northerners.  Students of history are at least as interested in the thousand years before 1922, and the majority of those studying the late 20th century history of "Ireland" will be studying the Northern conflict.  Yes, Britannica uses "Ireland", but the vast bulk of the article is concerned with the land of Ireland, with place-names etc. confined to southern places to give the impression it only applies to the 26 counties.  Does the soil and the climate change when you pass the Killeen border post?  Are the people's skin a different colour? "The island of Ireland" is an absurd name on so many levels.  First, it is a the - that's a no-no.  Second, it suggests some small island (Rockall, maybe?) belonging to Ireland.  Third, none of the tourists, business people or historians above have ever heard of this strange land.  The term has some use as a dab e.g. "the biggest mountain/company/chancer on the island of Ireland", but that's it.  "Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the Irish Manual of Style guideline."  Despite repeatedly asking, I still have no idea what this means.  Apparently IMOS is to be amended, but to say what? "Editors are encouraged to say Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) in all articles to avoid ambiguity"?  "Editors will not be flogged for using Ireland (state) or Ireland (island) because they are now offered as options"?  "Some people think Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) are cool terms so please try to fit them into some article somewhere"?  Why do we need to be "offered" these terms when we know they're there already.  And more to the point, who will benefit from the offer and how - there must be some benefit to somebody if it's to be included in a "package". "Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional 'disambiguating' expression..."  Again, why?  Since the expression is used nowhere on Wikipedia - and the idea that we should have it just because Britannica has it is ... well, an underwhelming argument - what is the benefit of adding it to IMOS as an option?  And again, how would it make the "package" more attractive and to whom?  Why on earth would we need a separate article on the 'term' "Republic of Ireland"?  WP is already top-heavy with articles on "Irish" terms, most of which tell us nothing more than that they are terms used in Ireland.  If you're going to write about the term, write it in the "Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" article, or wherever it's moved to, if it's moved.  The package as a package: in what way is it bigger or better, more NPOV, more inclusive or more worthy of consensus?  How will it, as a package, improve the situation?  I'm afraid I see nothing more than a collection of half-baked and unrelated ideas more likely to create confusion than consensus.

TDH

 * Official status of article space here

Requests

 * First addition NI unreffed
 * Add ref here

Non-bold version
If any of you have, like me, difficulty in reading vast swathes of bold text, here's a "normal" version. "The British Isles (Irish: variously Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha, Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa, Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór; Manx: Ellanyn Goaldagh; Scottish Gaelic: Eileanan Breatannach; Welsh: Ynysoedd Prydain) are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe which comprise Great Britain, the island of Ireland and a number of smaller islands."

"There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland. The group also includes the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and can, by tradition, include the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago. There are other common uncertainties surrounding the extent, names and geographical elements of the islands, and the general popualarity of the term."

"Although the term is a geographical one, and is used in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, it is periodically criticised for using the political term 'British', which suggests a British ownership of the archipelagos. This possibility of a mistaken interpretation causes the term to be controversial in relation to the island of Ireland, which is largely Irish and only British in Northern Ireland, which is about one sixth of the island. The term is not generally used by the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish embassy in London has said 'we would discourage its usage'."

"A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves, and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that forms of 'Britain and Ireland' have been increasingly used by cartographers over recent years." Crispness (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

DAB

 * Bold boy