Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names

'This poll is now closed. For announcement and discussion of the result, see here.'

Voting area
Note: Voting concluded at 21:00 UTC on 13th September 2009. Please do not add any more votes.


 *  Nelson50 T  15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Djegan (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MTC (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * // BL \\ (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Nelson50 T  15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Djegan (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MTC (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * // BL \\ (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Djegan (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MTC (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * // BL \\ (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MTC (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * // BL \\ (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * // BL \\ (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fences &amp;  Windows  21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Darius (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Tip - This ballot uses instant-runoff voting, IRV. To ensure that your vote counts in the final decision you should select at least 5 options. Reduced option selection may result in your ballot being discarded (exhausted) in the intermediate rounds of counting. This does not alter the guidance given above in  'Procedure for voting' 'Point 4' - You are not obliged to express a preference for any of the options that you do not wish to support (or have no preference about); Autodidactyl (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Note. At the time of writing, up to 10 ballots may not be counted in the final decision.)
 * Could you clarify. If I vote for one option, and my option is one of the least favourite, then it gets discarded. But if I vote for one option, and my option is one of the top favourites, then it gets carried forward?  SilkTork  *YES! 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you vote for one option and that makes it into the final round (like F clearly will) then it does not matter if you do not add a second or 3rd choice because it wont get counted. Its if someone votes for an option that wont make it into the final round their vote is discarded unless they have other options. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll leave my vote as it is then.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Tip - If it's giving you a warning even though you've signed, try putting your plain signature instead of your embellished one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The template now handles fancy fonts etc. in signatures. Use the new "sign" parameter if your sig contains fancy fonts, etc. (like this: ). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IVR not STV
Since there is only going to be one winner, the voting system is not "PRSTV" (or PR anything else) but rather instant-runoff voting. The Talk page shows non-RoI voters already confused because they are unfamiliar with the complexity of PRSTV; IRV is simpler and hence easier to understand. If "instant-runoff voting" is, as the article claims, an American term, it also avoids accusations of pro-Irish pro-British bias. Please change the ballot paper accordingly. jnestorius(talk) 19:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but calling it "instant-runoff voting" will confuse even more. STV is a term used and understood in both Britain and Ireland (both the island and the state) and the confusion is not with the name but with the mechanics and there is no bias either way. Introducing "IRV", a term not used at all in the island and its neighbours, or for that matter in most jurisdictions that actually use the system, is not going to be an improvement.
 * As for whether this is PRSTV or not, if a Brit may quote the Constitution of Ireland, Article 12.2.3 says:
 * The voting [for the President, with one person to be elected] shall be by secret ballot and on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
 * Whatever the technicalities this is how the system is referred to in practice. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not change anything once the voting has started. Fmph (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We will not change anything on the ballot now that voting has started. That would be improper. -- Evertype·✆ 08:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. That's rather pompous. Some points of difference between this vote and, say, a national general election: (1) canvassing is prohibited (2) voting is not secret (3) one may change one's vote. None of these facets is "improper" in the current context; neither would be amending the instructions to make them easier to understand. Who would suffer from such a change? Who would start protesting about some nefarious conspiracy? My revised suggested rewording:
 * Please vote by single transferable vote (i.e. rank your preferences, e.g. "A C B E F D"). The specific form of single transferable vote will be the alternative vote, i.e. there will be only one winner.
 * PS: Report of the Constitution Review Group:
 * The term ‘proportional representation’ denotes the filling of a number of seats by different parties in proportion to the votes they receive. It cannot refer to the filling of a single seat. [...] Recommendation: Delete the words ‘and on the system of proportional representation’ from Article 12.2.3°.
 * jnestorius(talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not civil to use the word "pompous". It would be "improper" because a number have people have voted on the ballot text as it stands, and if we were to change any of that text, it would or could render invalid reasons they might have voted the way they did. -- Evertype·✆

Condorcet
A Condorcet method would have been preferable to IRV (aka the Alternative Vote). Oh well. Iota (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm that using Condorcet - Schwartz Sequential Dropping, F still wins (well right up to the last import of data that I did). OpenSTV will calculate Concordet methods as well. But I see no reason to use what is ostensibly an American solution to try to 'solve' an Irish problem. It might be better to use an Irish solution. Fmph (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well certainly an advantage of the IRV (aka AV) is it is likely to be understood and trusted by Irish contributors. Iota (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (state) in Option E
The ballot is flawed. Selection E should be subdivided into an E2 where the article would be called "Republic of Ireland" not "Ireland (state)". "Ireland (state)" is very disrespectful just like "Canada (state)" would be. User F203 (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its used on 'the other wiki' (citizendium) ClemMcGann (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The ballot is what got agreed. It may be imperfect. But it's what got agreed. It is, in my view, however, incorrect to suggest that "Ireland (state)" is "disrespectful". It uses the formal name of the State. It describes the state as a state (and not an island or a town in Indiana; it avoids the use of "Republic of" which is considered problematic by (evidently) a fair number of (evidently) nationalist editors. Compare Georgia (country), Luxembourg (district), Luxembourg (city), Luxembourg (canton)... -- Evertype·✆ 06:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ireland (state)" was selected as the run-away winner from a preliminary poll of various Ireland (xxx) options. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The state refers to itself as the Republic of Ireland. Ireland and Eire refer to both parts of the country.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The state (Ireland) refers to itself as "the Irish State" - see [www.gov.ie] "information on the Irish State". It used to refer to itself as the "Irish Free State" ClemMcGann (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many references have been shown where the states government refers to itself as the Republic of Ireland when needed to avoid confusion with Northern Ireland or the island of Ireland. Click on the Geography option on the Gov.ie website ClemMcGann.. Whats it say? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That statement is full of inaccuracies. Sometimes you wonder how democracy actually manages to work!TintoDeSerrano (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the time-stamps, please clarify - which "statement is full of inaccuracies." ClemMcGann (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This section should probably be moved to the talk page. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are the statements?
The notice at the top of this page states that the options on the ballot are presented "along with links to essays from its participants which voters are strongly encouraged to read before making their choice." Where are these links? --Kwekubo (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm it probably should of been changed from Essays to statements which are available here. There is no separate essays written BritishWatcher (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How many people have voted without being able to access the statements? This sounds like a very serious failure in the agreed procedures. Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering in the info there is big bold text saying "Statements by individual members of the project" then the link to the page i doubt many will of had a problem, its likely people saw the statements but some may think there are also essays somewhere. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As above - everyone has been able to access statements since the first vote was cast via the link under the large title "Statements by individual members of the project" in the box at the top of the page. What they have not been able to access is seperate "essays" by individual users, the reason being - they do not exist. Guest9999 (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The statements page is a series of links to "essays" by individual users. Click on the individual user's name on that page to read their "essay". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're just inadvertently quibbling over terminology. Strictly speaking, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements includes neutral summaries of the individual statements ("A brief and neutral summary only may be given"), not the statements themselves. Of course, you could legitimately call these summaries statements in themselves if you want. The individual statements can be viewed by clicking on the names. You can also call these essays if you want, although they're called statements in the statements themselves, e.g. WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements/Evertype and "The following statement was..." Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I have only just realised that the links on the "Position statements" page lead to the statements/essays themselves. I had presumed that they were merely links to personal user pages, and that the so-called "summaries" were the actual "statements"; there is nothing to suggest otherwise (at least to a person who was not closely involved in the run-up to this poll). --Kwekubo (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the statements were an integral part of the agreed process and you voted on 2nd August this may be a major problem with the process. Sarah777 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stats for the statement pages show they have been viewed by some every day so i dont think all editors have been having this problem, we should make more clear on the statement page though considering theres still over 30 days to go. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we know how many voters didn't read the statements because they had no knowledge of them? Sarah is right, they were an integral part of the process. I think it might be a good idea to let all those who have voted know that the statements are there. I don't think we will have half of them returning to change their vote, but if the statements are going to be made clearer now then those whom it was not made clear to should be told. Jack forbes (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The statements page is advertised in the info box on the top of the page and in a warning box right before a person votes. Stats: 3,745 hits on this page. 144 voters. 401 hits on the positions statements page. Hits on individual statements: Bastun: 74; Britishwater: 81; Evertype: 66; GoodDay: 52; HighKing: 61; Rannpháirtí anaithnid: 56; Rockpocket: 47; Sarah777: 101; Scolaire: 43; Tfz: 40; Valenciano: 55. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew it was advertised, but from looking at user Kwekubos post I thought there may have been a problem for some when he said "I have only just realised that the links on the position statements page led to the statements/essays". If it's not a problem, great. Just checking. Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand. Well, about 10% of visitor to this page went on to the positions page. And about 10% of those who went on to each of the position statements. I think many people did pass them over because of the way that they were linked. I don't think we can assume that everyone who read a positions statement went on to vote - or that everyone who read one position statement went on to read them all - so we can't infer any more from the numbers about individual voters or even voters in general. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should just add something to the info on that page to make it really clear to click peoples names to take them to the statements. Theres still over 30 days left so if it helps them make up their minds thats a good thing. Theres nothing we can do about those who have already voted we cant send a message out to 140 people on the off chance a few missed it. If most had gone to that page and got lost im sure more would have asked here or somewhere else about it by now. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A reasonable suggestion ClemMcGann (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the words "statement by" to each of the links. --Carnildo (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good edit. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Vote Change?
Apologies if I've missed this somewhere on the page, but are we permitted to alter our vote if we want? Pretty Green (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You sure can. Others have and there's no rule to say otherwise. Jack forbes (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers Pretty Green (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? Check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration where proposals have been made to change your vote for you in case you didn't really vote as you believed :p ~ R.T.G 20:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut
This page has a very long name, there should be a shortcut. 199.71.214.94 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added one for the Voting Area - WP:IECVOT - but because the top of the page is transcluded from the protected ballot paper doc, I didn't like to mess with that. Maybe an admin could add WP:IECPOLL to the transcluded page? Fmph (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert
Just for the record, I reverted the contribution of the above IP editor which altered and generally munged votes. My revert is here, just for the record. (Hey, sometimes it's just passing muppets)  FlowerpotmaN ·(t) 17:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done !! ~ R.T.G 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fun Fact
Nobody voted in the Poll on August 30, 2009 UTC. The first date this has occurred since the Poll opened August 2. PS: We were close though, missed it by 2 minutes. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * lol interesting fact, glad you are here to tell us these things GoodDay :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle, my pleasure. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody voted on September 4, 2009 UTC. We've just over a week to go. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)