Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of townlands in County Laois


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to List of townlands of County Laois. There are some differences in how the two lists present the information but the clear consensus of the discussion is that the possible benefits are not significant enough to warrant the existance of both lists. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

List of townlands in County Laois

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Already a list at List of townlands of County Laois. Article claims that its purpose is a "simple alphabetical version" rather than the other article which "shows townland sizes, civil parishes, poor law unions, and baronies." I think that this "simple" list is unneeded.  :  pep  per   17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no need to have two similar pages on the same topic. So, the best course of action is to delete the less-detailed version.— Chris! c / t 20:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect Either title is acceptable, so "in" should be redirected to "of". Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect No need for two separate pages, but this title is a valid search term. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: it appears there are similar "duplicate" lists for the other Irish counties (though I have not checked them all). ww2censor (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am the originator of both lists. This is a rushed comment and I will return to expand my remarks when I have more time. The lists are not duplicates of each other as the introductions to them indicates. They are designed to offer different experiences and are available for different purposes. Please read my introductions. I would not have wasted my time building duplicates as it was very time-consuming so be assured that they are different. I have to go now but I will return to the discussion. —O'Dea  02:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I read the introduction and see why you created them in the first place. However, they are still duplicates. Readers viewing the sortable version can actually see the towns listed alphabetically. So, there is no need for them to utilize the simple list. That is the beauty of sortability because it allows us to avoid this kind of duplication.— Chris! c / t 19:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: (striking out because O'Dea already voted "Keep" above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)) — As the creator of the lists I shall explain why I presented two variants of the data, which are not copies of each other, as you shall see.


 * It has been argued here that the two lists are duplicates but they are not, much as that may appear to be the case upon superficial inspection. When I created the two views of the data, I included a brief description of how they were different in the introductions to each because I understood at the outset that there was an understandable risk that someone might hastily decide they were "the same". But I did not set out a detailed case for the differences between the lists because a Wikipedia entry is not the place to set down a justification of its own existence.


 * The simpler version of the list is designed to provide, so to speak, a "light" version of the information that is easy to negotiate by navigating using the handy alphabetic  template that appears throughout the list. There are two reasons why this version is desirable:


 * One can easily hop to a particular letter of the alphabet and inspect townlands there with similar names. People with an interest in Irish placenames are keen to study patterns of historic Irish language skeletons embedded within the anglicised flesh of the modern words. This evidence of linguistic pattern variation and inflections of grammatical paradigms is of keen interest to students of language, and of the Irish language in this particular case, for historic and linguistic reasons pertaining to the derivation of Irish place names and how they have been modified through anglicisation — so the list in this form is an invaluable tool for such researchers into this uniquely well-documented experiment in the historic mutual interpenetration of two languages. It is a matter of such absorbing interest and cultural significance and value that the playwright, Brian Friel, devoted his highly successful drama, "Translations" to this very subject because of how much it reveals about the mechanism and articulation of the relationship between conqueror and conquered (this is touched upon at Friel's Wikipedia article). In this configuration, the data patterns are revealed in a powerfully useful format that is much less readily exposed by the other configuration: this is the primary strength and value of this presentation.


 * Townlands within an Irish county are quite numerous so listing them creates a sizeable article. It is desirable to be able to navigate such a list fairly painlessly, as a simple ergonomic courtesy to users; awkward tools can be tossed aside, unused. Some may be frustrated by the size of the fuller version of the list that contains more sortable information, so this "lighter" view is offered as a consideration to those people, also. Furthermore, language students and researchers viewing this list will have far less scrolling to do as the data are presented in three columns allowing language patterns and paradigms to be identified more comprehensively.


 * The alternative list, the "heavier" one containing sortable information which cross-lists townlands within other geographic units, is of interest and value for other reasons, suiting different purposes.


 * Students and researchers of history and genealogy find it valuable to study particular areas to identify where townlands relate to each other within a civil parish or barony or poor law union. This second list provides these useful data in an organisable hierarchy achievable by sorting in a variety of sequences. Many people outside Ireland studying their Irish roots will grasp this tool with delight because often they must investigate multiple sources to collate data concerning the location details of partially-identified Irish ancestors while, perhaps, other non-Irish readers who have no pressing interest in the data may not be in a position to grasp its importance and its value to others.


 * This juicy and revealing functionality, however, comes at the price of a page which can be fairly heavy to load in the browser or which can be tricky to navigate because the scroll button in a very long list shrinks in proportion to the length of the document. When the scroll button is very small, it can be both tricky to grasp hold of and to drag accurately to a desired spot in the list. So the valuable comprehensiveness of location information, and the sortable high functionality, come at a price in ease of navigation; there is a trade-off.


 * A solution with some such lists is to break them up into smaller sub-pages, linked to from the original page, but applying this solution to some sortable lists completely destroys the very reason for having the list by breaking it into sections.


 * What does that mean in practice?


 * If you take all the townlands beginning with the letter A in County Laois, and make of them a smaller list by themselves, then do the same with all the other townlands beginning with other letters, you then have up to 26 smaller lists that are easily navigated. But, in doing so, you have destroyed the value of the original sortable list because a larger geographic unit such as a barony contains townlands beginning with many letters of the alphabet, so clicking on the barony column in the sortable list for townlands beginning with the letter G, for example, will not show townlands beginning with other letters. Thus, it is essential for the integrity, and the essential data-analysis function, of the sort facility that the list not be fragmented. Such fragmentation destroys the very purpose of the sortable list and renders it meaningless.


 * Therefore, I created two lists for two different functionalities. Rather than seeing the lists as "the same" or "duplicates" or "copies", it may help to understand the justification of the two variants as being analogous to two different views of a database designed for different applications and audiences. This is a common presentational strategy in database management, such as when a company executive asks to see annual sales figures presented in one way to understand a certain aspect of sales behaviour, while an executive with different responsibilities requests a presentation in another way to gain a different set of insights from the alternative view. The underlying data may be identical, but the alternative presentations of those data provides different views, different functionalities, different user experiences, and ultimately, an entirely different set of insights. Why? Because they are actually looking at different things, no matter that they are constructed of the same underlying units.


 * Because of the sheer amount of data involved, significant quantities of time were required to prepare the townlands data as a contribution to Wikipedia, so the two variants of the data were not undertaken frivolously. They were uploaded because they are not the same at all, and because they serve different but equally valid and serious purposes, as described above. Wikipedia users with different requirements and interests will find something within both variants to suit their needs. If you do not like one version, maybe the other will suit you better, and no need to propose destroying the version that did not suit you, please! I apologise for the length of this explanation but the insights, I feel, are in the details; there is more than one issue at stake, and to be addressed; and I cannot expect non-Irish readers to see issues that are more visible to my countrymen with direct experience of the variety of cultural issues involved in these apparently "simple lists".


 * Another user with whom I had no prior contact, and who appreciated the value of the lists, awarded me my first barnstar based on the large project I undertook. —O'Dea  14:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is one delete vote above, and two votes for redirect, but I note the users in question do not appear to be Irish and may not, as a result, have been in a position to appreciate the issues at stake prior to the explanation that was presented here after they voted. —O'Dea  00:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that non-Irish users are not qualified to judge the usefulness of this list? I felt offended by that suggestion. We are here to debate whether or not this list should be kept per Wikipedia policies, so please keep this nationality nonsense out of this.— Chris! c / t 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect, redundant and significantly less useful. The fact that the townland names are given in this list, without bluelinks and without any other information about them, makes the list a complete deadend; "here is a list of names used by townlands in County Laois, but we won't tell you exactly where they are or anything else about them."  I think the most damning fact is that there are townlands that share the same name, so in this unannotated list of townland names, we have "Ballykealy" repeated twice, for example.  O'Dea's tortuously long explanation of why two lists are necessary doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  The only real argument I can gather from it is that the stripped down list is easier to deal with, but I don't see that claim established or even a clear statement of for what hypothetical task the stripped down list is easier.  And as I've stated, stripping away all the further information just makes the list of names more useless and the duplications confusing.  Further, with the use of anchorlinks or possibly other methods, an alphabetized TOC could be added to the substantial list that would make it easier to skip around by letter grouping.  BTW, my grandmother's ancestors came from Ireland, so I am at least 25% qualified to pass judgment on whether this list is useful.  ; )  postdlf (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Although I did not create offence, offence appears to have been taken. Let me quote myself: I cannot expect non-Irish readers to see issues that are more visible to my countrymen with direct experience of the variety of cultural issues involved in these apparently "simple lists". Notice, I did not say non-Irish are stupid or ignorant; I said I cannot expect them to have as rich an appreciation of Irish language issues as Irish natives can. That is not contentious or insulting. I do not claim to be sensitive to the significance of placenames in Poland because I cannot speak Polish so my knowledge of how instructive they are in the Polish historical context is inadequate. I cannot stop people misconstruing my words and then taking offence.


 * The length of my response was criticized but I addressed the reason for that already: The insights, I feel, are in the details; there is more than one issue at stake, and to be addressed. A proper explanation and justification of the lists required revealing their raisons d'être and the actual, meaningful differences between them which people appear to find subtle and thus accuse the lists of being duplicates. People clearly did not recognise the differences and it was essential to try to make this aspect as explicit as possible. I am merely trying to be helpful.


 * Links can be created from the lists as time permits. I have been busy researching and writing another similar list in which I did add links (Coastal landforms of Ireland) because it was more feasible owing to the fewer data items involved, and links can be created for the townland lists, too. As is often pointed out elsewhere in deletion discussions, it is not good practice to delete articles which can be improved. Furthermore, given the number of townlands, it would be exhausting for one person to try to establish links for so many townlands. Wikipedia is collaborative and many hands make light work. I can add links as my schedule permits, as can others. As for the duplicate townland names, there are townlands with the same names in County Laois, just as there are many places called Springfield. This is not "damning" as alleged: as a road atlas lists many Springfields in its index, so the townland lists contain duplicate townlands and these differences can be accounted for easily within the baronies or poor law unions columns.


 * One person said the list is a dead end. I am, therefore, and unfortunately, obliged to repeat myself yet again (this is more tedious for me than it is for you) in response to that: It reveals linguistic pattern variation and inflections of grammatical paradigms. How can I convey the importance of that if people do not wish to see its importance when it is stated and explained? Again, I am forced to say that this issue relates to a non English language phenomenon and I can understand that non Irish speakers will not see this, although when I try to explain it, I am accused of verbosity. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Another point: Is a novel without hypertext links a dead end? Information and insights can be gained without links.


 * The same person said, "the only real argument I can gather from it is that the stripped down list is easier to deal with". I am forced to accuse the user in question of not paying attention or reading too quickly. I went to the trouble of explaining the cultural-anthropological-linguistic context and usefulness of the list and how proximal words reveal linguistic mechanism variations (this is a perfect reason for a list) and all I can do is refer him back to my statements and request him to read with more patience, please. In addition, his proposal that an "alphabetized TOC could be added to the substantial list" cannot work because you cannot insert TOCs into the middle of a sortable list; it is technically impossible. —O'Dea  08:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Tehcnically impossible"? You can thank me later.  postdlf (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, technically impossible. I said you cannot insert TOCs into the middle of a sortable list and you have not managed to code s into a sortable table. You have merely coded anchors in the table but you have not offered distributed  s throughout to allow movement to different parts of the table, or back to the top. In addition, since this is a sortable list, the moment it has been sorted by any column other than townland, the navigation bar you placed at the top of the page becomes meaningless for navigation because they are now in a scrambled sequence, unless the user scrolls all the way to the top to re-sort the list, which is not exactly ergonomic to say the least. Furthermore, your attempted solution fails to offer the kind of multi-column browsing available in the list being attacked, the essential desirability of which I have described with detailed care, although people ignore my points completely and simply repeat the mantra, "It's just repetition". My points are being ignored.  —O'Dea  18:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your points are being disagreed with. Perhaps they might have more persuasive force if you were to state them more concisely and with less metacommentary on how important your points are.  On the TOC, all anyone has to do is hit the back button on their browser, or scroll back to the top or the bottom, and they are back at the TOC.  We could add another column to the table so that the TOC can be repeated throughout.  I think that's unnecessary, but anyone can knock themselves out trying to make it work.  It's also unnecessary to have a separate, stripped down list just so people don't have to hit the back button to get back to the TOC.  postdlf (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * postdlf: all anyone has to do is hit the back button on their browser, or scroll back to the top or the bottom — O'Dea: This often stops working when a number of browser windows have been opened and closed during a browsing session: Windows memory grows "tired" during heavy use when cumulative poor Windows memory management interferes with browser performance. Most of the time, when I hit CTRL+HOME in Firefox to go to the top, it fails to work. When I hit the BACK button or press ALT+LEFT ARROW, I wind up at the previous page, not at the top of the present one. Explicit links to click upon overcome this. —O'Dea  01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * postdlf: It's also unnecessary to have a separate, stripped down list just so people don't have to hit the back button to get back to the TOC. — O'Dea: But that was only one of my reasons for keeping it, as I explained, and furthermore, your attempted solution didn't work. In addition, there is no need to dicker with the sortable table because the other list serves a different function and already has that functionality. Once again, the lists are not the same so why mess with the sortable list? It's pointless. —O'Dea  01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have begun improvements to the list by adding six links at the cost of 15 minutes of my time to identify links that can be added and then applying the edits. As you can see it is slow work and I would appreciate constructive help with this work rather than proposing to delete a perfectly good list. —O'Dea  09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of townlands of County Laois. The sortable list already covers the alphabetical sorting if so needed. The only difference is that this one lists them in three columns instead of one. I appreciate the comments given by Odea, but the benefits he lists do not justify the added confusion of having two lists covering the same topic. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe Odea is correct that there is value in having a smaller version of the list - it is much more navigable and easy to use, so I'm slightly inclined towards a Keep/Merge. The issue is also valid - there is duplication.  Is it possible for a single listbox to switch between long and short forms?  If so, that would be a simple solution. --HighKing (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is List of townlands of County Laois any less navigable than List of townlands in County Laois? Not really with the edits made by Postdlf. So, the whole argument about accessibility is moot.—  Chris! c / t 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, accessibility was only one of the reasons for creating that list and secondly I have described how postdlf's attempted solution did not reproduce the navigability of the other list, and was rendered useless after sorting. So it is not moot. —O'Dea  01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have now added links to 30 Wikipedia articles from this list to improve it and have reached the letter "K", which is more work than critics are willing to do. It is a very slow business identifying Wikipedia articles for this county so any help would be appreciated. —O'Dea  18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. User:Sjakkalle, you say "The sortable list already covers the alphabetical sorting" but you have not addressed the points I made about the other list at all. Yours is merely a drive-by comment. Please engage seriously and make a meaningful contribution. You add that the benefits I list "do not justify the added confusion of having two lists covering the same topic". Why do you think that? You haven't offered an argument. I submit there is no confusion: it is immediately obvious visually that they are not the same kind of lists and each contains a clearly-written explanation in the lead paragraph. I have already drawn an analogy to different styles of database views or presentations from the same data but you ignored that point. What about Wikipedia articles about nations, for example, which describe geography and economy, but which also branch to a separate article which repeat much of the information while exploring those subjects in more detail. That repetition and duplication is widespread and accepted throughout the encyclopaedia. Repetition is acceptable when it is not really repetition at all, a point I have made from the beginning, but people continue to say "this is just the same thing". —O'Dea  18:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think User:Postdlf's comment pretty much refute all the benefits you listed about the duplication. Also characterize good faith comment you disagree with as drive-by comment is not helpful.— Chris! c / t 23:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that he refuted my benefits since firstly, his proposed solution didn't work and, secondly, he only addressed one narrow aspect of my discussion and ignored the rest, so how could he have refuted it? Also, I defend that the other "drive-by" comment as valid because that person, as I explained, dropped off a comment without engaging any of my points: his contribution was superficial and critical, which is disappointing because it merely attacks without showing any sign that he troubled to understand my points which I have worked hard to make. In short, I found it glib because it was irresponsible. It is not invalid to point out glibness in a discussion. —O'Dea  01:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that comment is not a drive-by comment. Drive-by comments are those that simply state keep or delete without any explanation. User:Sjakkalle did explain why he voted the way he voted that he believed the sortable list already served the same purpose and the benefits you listed do not justify the duplication.— Chris! c / t 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I am the one who coined the term "drive-by" for the occasion, I will define what I meant by it: the user made a superficial assessment which ignored the justifications offered. He said, "The only difference is that this one lists them in three columns instead of one." That was untrue; it was a distorting simplification; and it simply ignored what I had been saying. That was not the only difference as I am tired pointing out. He made the lazy, exasperating and untrue assertion that there was only one difference after I had described a variety of them, but it was like my explanation had been completely overlooked, rendering my careful contributions null. This is supposed to be a discussion, so these are the terms which express my appraisal of his remarks: "Drive-by." "Superficial." —O'Dea  05:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I find your comment extremely uncivil. I believe he did not ignore the justifications offered, but he disagreed with them. Anyway that is besides the point. Please assume good faith, calling editors lazy or dismissing valid comments as superficial is extremely unhelpful. Also editors are not required to engage in any discussion before making a comment.— Chris! c / t 19:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect. As just about every other editor contributing to this discussion has noted, there is already a better list available at List of townlands in County Laois, which is sortable. I don't understand the argument of "it's a different experience" and "it's easier to navigate". (Please don't bother to try to explain it; the rebuttals to every other editor haven't made it any clearer.)  Horologium  (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was the one who wrote that "better" list but it's only better in one way; it has the limitations I described in terms of navigability and also its other intended functions as described. It's not just about the navigability.
 * Has anyone at all understood my point that these lists are not the same but are merely the same data? The presentations are different! It's such a basic point. Not one person has acknowledged it. I feel like I'm beating my brains out for nothing. No-one touched my other point that there is useful duplication and information overlap in many Wikipedia articles (I cited the example of nation articles and sub-articles). I think this horror of duplication is misplaced because firstly that example I cited shows the validity of it elsewhere in the encyclopaedia and, secondly, because people keep picking at the same things, ignoring points that don't suit them, and say the same things repeatedly as if my replies had gone unheard. Where is the good faith? Where is the willingness to listen? This is so time-consuming and frustrating. —O'Dea  02:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have put more hours in tracking down linkable articles about County Laois and have linked to all those articles in Wikipedia, about 45 of them. That may not seem very many after so much work but I had to check nearly 1,200 townlands to see if there was a Wikipedia article about them. Anyway, the list is now populated to its maximum current potential (until further articles are written) with links to all available Laois articles so I will accept no more complaints that it is a "dead end". Goodnight. —O'Dea  01:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect: I have read and tried to understand the reasons for creating two lists. I appreciate the work that has gone into the task, and the importance that the creator attaches to it. At the end of the day, however, I don't believe that the duplication is justified. Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.