Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 3

County Abbreviations
Can I suggest another guideline. To not use Co. or Co in county names, but to spell them out as County Down, County Donegal etc. The reasoning behind this is that people from Ireland may be very familiar with this kind of abbreviation, but I don't believe it is used anywhere else in the world. Plus we really shouldn't be using abbreviations in proper nouns. Yes people from Ireland will know Co. means county, but I think that that's in the minority of readers. Canterbury Tail  talk  03:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it might be useful to state that explicitly. Though in my experience, I've seen "Co." being used very rarely anyway on Irish wiki articles. -- Schcambo aon scéal? 10:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it being used quite a bit. It's very common usage in Ireland, and since most of the editors of Irish articles are usually from Ireland (like any other geographical articles to be fair) they use what they are used to. It's not a dig at anyone, it's quite understandable that it happens, but I don't feel that anyone from outside Ireland, even in England, really recognises Co or Co. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if no one has any objections I'll add a line to the IMOS about this. Canterbury Tail  talk  13:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --HighKing (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeme like a good thing for clarity. ww2censor (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The people in the Oireachtas
After nearly three years of intermittently editing articles related to the Oireachtas, I have recently started working on these articles again and have finally noticed that we have a terminological problem in referring to those who sit in the Oireachtas.

In a nutshell, the issue is that:
 * The official titles are in Irish, as the first official language
 * Wikipedia prefers unabbreviated English-language terminology
 * The common usage in Ireland of some terms is the Irish language term, and in others it is the English term, and in some cases it is an abbreviation

However, current usage on wikipedia seems to be inconsistent, confusing and in some cases simply wrong. As one example, we have a series of articles listing the composition of Dála, which are named Members of the xxth Dáil (e.g. Members of the 25th Dáil). However, Dáil Éireann does not have "members". "Members" is the term used in the British House of Commons, but Teachtaí Dála are not "members of" Dáil Éireann; they are "deputies to" the Dáil, and I think it is wrong to follow the British terminology here.

This probably reflects a different conception of the nature of the two national legislatures, with the Irish concept drawing more on the model of the French Revolution while the British parliament has its origins in a near-absolute monarchy. British Members of parliament being summoned by the monarchy, while Dáil deputies are sent by the electorate .... but whatever the underlying reasons, the problem is that it seems to me that terms such as "Members of the Dáil" are found only on wikipedia.

I tried drawing up a table of some of the terms:

... and although it's a bit simplistic, I think it highlights that the only difficulty is around TDs. I think that in general usage, existing best practice is to follow the guidelines on abbreviations by expanding them on first usage in an article: Teachta Dála (TD) is certainly better than TD or a piped link like TD, but even Teachta Dála (TD) is not very helpful to readers new to the subject unless they follow the link.

So I wanted to suggest that it would be better in many cases to introduce the word "deputy", as in this sentence which I edited into the lead section of the article on the Dún Laoghaire constituency: The constituency has an electorate of 91,522 and is served by 5 deputies (Teachtaí Dála, commonly referred to in English as TDs).

I don't want in any way to displace "TD" from wikipedia, because it is the most widely-used term in Ireland, and is therefore "common usage". However, more widespread usage of the word "deputy" would then allow us to avoid misusing the term "member", both later in constituency articles and in category and article names. As an example of this with an article, please compare two versions of the table of TDs for Dún Laoghaire: the current version, using the term "deputy" and an earlier version using "member".

So far, I think I have only changed that one article, because after reflecting on those edits it seemed to me that this needed wider discussion. I'm not feeling dogmatic about this change, and may well be dissuaded, but it does seem to me that there is a problem in the way we have done it so far. If there does turn out to be a consensus for this, I suggest that we should then look at a series of renaming of articles and categories, such as:
 * Members of the 25th Dáil --> Deputies to the 25th Dáil
 * Category:Members of the 17th Dáil --> Category:Deputies to the 17th Dáil

What do others think? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well reasoned and presented, I would support this move. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and support also. --HighKing (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know but I have made this edit] on the grounds that you are correct - Is it correct? - (Actually rereading the above I think I picked up on a link transalating DE as The House of Representitives of Ireland) . Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused -according to Teachta Dála should not the translation be member until 1922; deputy until 1937 and representive from then on? I agree Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding TDs, the word Deputy is not widely used outside the Dail Chamber itself. It maybe a more accurate translation, but TD is the most widely used term in Ireland. Looking at the oireachtas website, see, where the term deputies is used interchangeably with members, e.g. Members of Dáil Éireann are elected by citizens aged 18 years and over. A Member's official Irish title is "Teachta Dála" which in English means "Deputy to the Dáil"; Members are generally called "TDs" or "Deputies". Looking at the Constitution (Articles 15 and 16) , the term deputy is not used at all, its members of. Maybe we shouldn't use Teachta Dála (TD) because the term Teachta Dála isn't used in public discourse, maybe it should be just a piped link to TD.
 * Regarding the proposed renaming of the articles and categories, I don't agree with it. At the moment we have Members of the 30th Dáil and Members of the 23rd Seanad, under the proposed move, we'd have Deputies to the 30th Dáil but the Seanad articles and categories remain unchanged because the Seanad doesn't have deputies but members. This would create a bit of a disconnect between the two sets of related articles. Well, that's my two cents. Snappy (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Snappy, thank you very much that for thoughtful and well-researched contribution. I'm glad I pointed you to this discussion!
 * I'm afraid it seems clear that I should have done more research before posting here. Your links to the Oireachtas website surprised me in their use of the term "members", so I followed your example and looked at the Constitituon, in particular articles 15-27 "headed "the National Parliament".  It repeatedly uses the word "member" or "members", so often that I chucked the text into a counter and find that  "member" or "members" or "membership" is used 57 times in those articles, and in a quick scan of the output of grep, every instance I examined was referring to "members of Seanad Éireann", "members of Dáil Éireann", "member of either House".  I found no use of the word "deputy" in Articles 15-27, just as you reported from articles 15-16.
 * So I'm afraid that the evidence shows that my suggestion was mostly wrong, and I'm sorry for wasting people's time by not doing sufficient research before posting.
 * Given this, I'm wholly persuaded that it would be a bad idea to rename articles to "Deputies to x", etc ... but I think it is still worth looking at how best to handle the terms within articles.
 * However, since the Oireachtas website's information page about TDs is entitled "TEACHTA DÁLA - DEPUTY" and as you have quoted says that "Members are generally called 'TDs' or 'Deputies'", it seems to me that it would still be a good idea to introduce term "deputy" into articles, at least in the opening paragraph of constituenccy articles or lists of TDs, using some formulation like one I posted above (served by 5 deputies (Teachtaí Dála, commonly referred to in English as TDs).  It seems to me that this helps the reader by drawing their attention to the range of terms which may be used in other contexts.
 * I'm less sure about further usage. I think that in general, it's best to continue existing practice of using "TD" ot "TDs", but what about the tables which refer to "1st member", "2nd member" etc?  That's introducing yet another word into the mix, and I'm still inclined to think that it would be better there to use "1st deputy" or "1st TD". Any thoughts on that? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * BHG, I agree with your formulation; served by 5 deputies (Teachtaí Dála, etc. for articles on constituencies and lists of TDs. As for the use of the word member in the tables, I would prefer if TD were used instead but Deputy is fine with me too. Snappy (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationality
There often seems to be edit wars regarding people from Northern Ireland as to what nationality to put them down as. Some want Irish, as they may have called themselves Irish at some point, some want British as they would probably be British by birth. Obviously no matter which of the two you choose it raises issues in most cases (for instance Ian Paisley has described himself as Irish on many occasions, but this does not imply he has Irish citizenship.) However many people reading Wikipedia would probably assume a declaration of Irish to imply citizenship rather. It's quite legitimate to describe someone from NI as Irish, without it being citizenship, and for someone to describe themselves as thus.

In addition it raises the issue of them having Irish citizenship but them possibly also being British due to birth in NI and probably haven't gone through the formal legal process of denouncing it. Should they then be described as British until proven otherwise as well? Can, worms, open, all over the floor.

As a result I've be of the mind of putting them as coming from Northern Ireland rather than saying British, Irish, Northern Irish etc. References where people call themselves Irish can't always be taken as saying they have Irish citizenship, but merely are from the island of Ireland and consider themselves Irish. Any thoughts on the matter? Canterbury Tail  talk  23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed at least once here and perhaps elsewhere too. Archived discussion is here. ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I realise that, but it keeps coming up and we don't have a policy for it one way or another. Just seeing if we could start a discussion that can come to some consensus on this. Canterbury Tail   talk  00:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A modest proposal
I propose make the following amendment to the Use of 'Republic of Ireland' and 'Ireland' for the Irish state section.

To replace of the sentences:

with:



I feel this represents current practice. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It sounds right but is a little too legalistic IMHO as you have written it above ("without prejudice" etc.). I think it can be written simpler, but in a nutshell it's common sense and common.
 * Here's my re-run:


 * In general the state should be referred to as Ireland. There are situations however when, for clarity and/or disambiguation, distinctions will need to be made a) between Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island and b) to avoid confusion with regard to Northern Ireland. In these situation the preferred means to do so is to call the island Ireland and the state the Republic of Ireland (this can be emphasised where necessary by use the phrase island of Ireland).
 * While the final decision to use one set of terms or the other should be determined by the unique contexts of each situation, the following rules of thumb will generally hold true:
 * In lists of sovereign states, when discussing economies, governments or other qualities of states, the state should be referred to as Ireland e.g. Economy of Europe, NATO.
 * When describing the area served by an organisation that is primarily all-island, use the phrase island of Ireland in the first instance and either Ireland or island of Ireland thereafter e.g. Supermacs
 * Always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. the President of Ireland, never the President of the Republic of Ireland)
 * When writing about the state and Northern Ireland in the same context, use the Republic of Ireland (or the Republic thereafter) e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland".
 * For articles where historical correctness is important (e.g. The Emergency (Ireland)) the state should be called the Irish Free State for the period between 6 December 1922 to 29 December 1937. In the same kind of articles, for the period thereafter until the coming into force of the Republic of Ireland Act (18 April 1949), the state not be referred to as the Republic of Ireland (another means to distinguish Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island should be used as necessary).


 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I support keeping:




 * Although, mostly, I agree with User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid's analysis. In particular, I agree that "general the state should be referred to as Ireland" although I think referring to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is ok and Ireland and the UK is better. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The European Union, note that the names of the Member States of the European Union must always be written and abbreviated according to the Interinstitutional Style Guide rules and that neither “Republic of Ireland” nor “Irish Republic” should be used when referring to the Irish State. This also includes Ireland's geographical name. -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't the European Union. Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We would not expect anything less from you when confronted with a clear statement of fact. -- Domer48 'fenian'  23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The same could be said about you. Mooretwin (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And again, you just can't help yourself can you? -- Domer48 'fenian'  23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, you just can't help yourself can you? Mooretwin (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut that out you two, or they're be no ice cream for either of you! Domer48, the EU policy is a very pertinent and interesting datapoint for Names of the Irish state. But Wikipedia is not obliged to follow EU Interinstitutional style guide rules on this or any other matter. The criteria on which they base their decisions are not the same as those on which we base ours. jnestorius(talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well verifiability is one thing we have in common. Based no doubt on reliable sources and not the original research of editors who wish to ignore our policies. What the EU link does illustrate is that Ireland is the name of the Country and State and is the same criteria which we base our decisions. You are right, I should stop feeding into that puerile nonsense. -- Domer48 'fenian'  08:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No-one's denying that the official name is "Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is now split between here and the Collaboration project (my bad). Redking7, the point about the border was made on that page. In hindsight using the border was poor choice of example. (A better one might be to describe a recent increase in shoppers in Newry as coming from the Republic of Ireland). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be opposed to the proposal (reasonable as it is); we should stick with the current guidelines until the name of the Ireland articles is sorted out. I'm especially dubious about the "ban" on "the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland"; that usage is not only legally correct and EU correct but is also common usage. You'd need to have the intelligence of a newt not to know what it refers to. Sarah777 (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Common usage"? I have to say, I've never heard anyone refer to "the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The border was a bad example. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland article names
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Evertype (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Series of proposals as WP:IECOLL
I've opened a series of proposals on the user of "Ireland" to identify the state and the island in articles, titles and lists at the IECOLL page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change
I'd like to insert the following into the MOS. It has been ran through the WP:IECOLL and had general agreement. The first and fourth bullets are similar to an older version of the MOS. The second and third bullets, I think, reflect common practice.


 * When referring to places and settlements in the Republic of Ireland in the introduction to articles (and in elements such as info boxes), use Ireland not Ireland or Republic of Ireland e.g. Cork, Ireland.
 * In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland.
 * An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating the politics or governance) where Ireland should be preferred and the island referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar.
 * Regardless of the above guidelines, always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. President of Ireland).

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Scolaire (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Question The part about when Northern Ireland is being referred to is vague. I'm sure many people would find the phrase "United Kingdom and Ireland" vague or misleading, and if the UK was being referred to by its full name the Northern Ireland clause would obviously apply. So should Northern Ireland be extended to include the UK? Obviously when you're dealing with say lists or similar there's no need, but I think when both are being referred to in the same sentence some guidance is needed on this? 2 lines of K  303  13:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on context. In most cases, I think, when speaking about the UK and Ireland in one breath it's clear that you are talking about states (e.g. "Both the United Kingdom and Ireland are members of the European Union" or "The United Kingdom and Ireland have contrasting military policies".) It would be quite odd to use the (full) formal name of the UK and not use the formal name of Ireland IMHO - but I can't think of a context where you would have to.
 * What kind of contexts do you foresee it being misleading? (Were you talking about the two islands, I would suggest saying, "Great Britain and Ireland".) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problems with the example you're talking about, as the context is clear the states are being referred to. What I'm more concerned about is for example a banned editor's target - Iceland (supermarket) and similar usages. While I don't think it's particularly helpful to use the names of states when you're really talking geographical contexts, I think it's going to cause even bigger problems if you start using "Great Britain and Ireland" in those contexts as you can imagine editors of a unionist persuasion not being happy about it. Plus where do companies actually operate? Surely they operate in countries (or states, or statelets, or whatever you want to call them)? 2 lines of K  303  14:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. That particular example is a very interesting one. From what I've read, Iceland don't operate stores in the Republic of Ireland but they do operate stores on the island of Ireland. The stores in the Republic of Ireland are operated by a different company, as a franchise? You will need to draw a distiction there. On the issue of the opening line, ordinarily I'd say "United Kingdom and Ireland" (at the very worst, no matter how you read "Ireland", the sentence would still be correct) but maybe you would want to introduce the distinction beteen the Republic of Ireland and the UK stores sooner. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're looking at it from a slightly flawed perspective. If we're talking about wording for a guideline, things like stores being franchises aren't really that relevant. I was using that as a quite common example of when UK and Ireland is being used in a way that doesn't refer directly to the states but to the geographical areas, but if we start using the geographical terms that's going to open an even bigger can of worms. Surely the whole point of a guideline is to secure some general sort of consistency across articles, not to have variations in terminology used based on the stores in the South being franchises? 2 lines of K  303  15:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The general consistency across articles is to use Ireland for the Irish state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise.
 * In the case of Iceland (supermarket), it would appear that you need to do that when drawing a distinction between the supermarket's business arrangements in the United Kingdom and its business arrangements in the Republic of Ireland as using the word Ireland in that context may be confusing. Where that danger does not exist, use Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actual changes made
The actual changes you made to the IMOS are not in line with your proposals. You inserted the following: This is factually wrong on two points. The IECOLL poll was part of a process, which has since been abandoned. The poll results are also disputed, and points raised about the weight of various nationalities has not yet been properly discussed. There is no consensus to adopt part of the failed process. And since the process failed, there is also no decision to wait till Autumn 2011 to review. This has all been discussed previously. I've changed the text to be factually accurate, and it now reads (barring the inevitable POV pushers who will edit war to attempt to steam-roll it as an actual finished process and decision) --HighKing (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerns have been expressed that using the word Ireland alone can mislead given that it refers to both the island of Ireland and the Irish state (which are not conterminous). A discussion process decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland for the time being. That decision will be reviewed, possibly in Autumn 2011
 * Concerns have been expressed that using the word Ireland alone can mislead given that it refers to both the island of Ireland and the Irish state (which are not conterminous). A discussion process involving Arbcom broke down and was incomplete. No decisions were agreed to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland for the time being. That decision will be ultimately be reviewed and hopefully will not break down


 * The decision was pretty clear from my reading of it, and in fact you agreed to let it be in one comment, then changed your mind later. It seems like a lot of the discussion was over the striking of a few votes that would have made no difference to the overall outcome anyway. Canterbury Tail   talk  14:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What decision exactly? You see, the poll was part of a process.  One part - the very first part.  The process broke down.  The poll has no validity on it's own - many voters believed they were taking part in a process, and may very well have voted differently if they had been informed that the vote on the name was an independent vote.  Leaving aside for a moment, the reasons why the process broke down, it is factually incorrect, underhanded, and misleading, to now try (months after the process broke down) to perpetrate the vote as a decision.  It is not, and the actions of those editors attempting to change the IMOS wrong.  --HighKing (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for the vote to be mentioned at all in the IMOS. It should probably just be reverted back to what it was previously as it amounts to the same thing. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added it because it was an important decision made that affects the MOS with respect to Ireland-related articles. Highking doesn't recognise the result of the vote. I suspect he would have had is gone the other way. However, for good or for bad, the community has. I expect it will be reviewed in 2011 as agreed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the vote was stage 1 of the process, but it came out in favour of the current status quo situation, so there was no reason to have more process. It was decided, and not the way I went and not the way many went, but was decided. End of process. However I'm not convinced there is a reason to mention it in the MOS. Canterbury Tail   talk  16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understood it, "stage 2" was agreement on in-article use. (If I recall some editors abstained, or objected to proposals for "stage 2" arguing that if on agreement was reached there then "stage 1" [[WP:GAME|wouldn't stand.) There was never any real disagreement over "stage 2" and that is the bulk of the Use of 'Ireland' and 'Republic of Ireland' section.
 * To me it's self evident that the reason for IRL/ROI choice of article names should be noted in the IMOS. As should the note that this will be reviewed in 2011. Why would it not?
 * (As a side issue, do you think the IECOLL process needs an official line drawn under it by ArbCom?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The IMOS was not affected at all by the broken process. If it is to be mentioned, it needs to get an official seal of approval from Arbcom.  --HighKing (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually silence can be accepted as consensus, but in the interests of avoiding another edit war, speak now... --HighKing (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with your proposal above. I'm unclear what you're asking in your post of today - can you clarify, please? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the "decision" was not endorsed by Arbcom, it should be removed from the IMOS. --HighKing (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea for ArbCom to officially close it. I think a finality was reached (i.e. to park the IRL/ROI pages until 2011 and what is described in the IMOS at present regarding in-article use). But I would be good to have ArbCom officially draw a line underneath it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. And in the meantime, let's put the IMOS back to the way it was.  Announcing it here creates the illusion that it has been sanctioned, and it's not like it makes the usage of pipelinking and different.  --HighKing (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Masem to do this. I've commented out the section until we get feedback on this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change flags (Modern usage only)
Wording as follows my comments will be in italics

The usage of flags for Ireland related issues has proven controversial as such the following guidelines are intended to clarify the usage of Irish flags in the modern context. This section does not attempt to deal with the issues surrounding the usage of Irish flags pre 1922.

Flag for Ireland related concepts and issues
In this section Ireland refers to the Island of Ireland concepts and issues such as Irish Music and Sport in Ireland but not organisations. The Island of Ireland has no de jure flag nor does it have a universally accepted de facto flag. As such no flag should be used to represent a Irish concept or issues as such usage would be orginal research or re-purposing a flag beyond it's legitimate scope.

All-Ireland organisations/sporting organisations defining nationality
In this section All Ireland refers to organisations who operate in Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and/or sporting organisations whom define nationality such as FIFA and the IRB.

Organisations are independent of wiki and its policies. It is not for us to declare the Irish Ice Hockey Association's use of the tri-colour as POV.

If an organisation has a flag they use to represent Ireland we should use it to represent the organisation. We should use the flag the organisation uses too represent teams,bodies or people under it's jurisdiction.

An exception occurs if the image is copyrighted such as the IRFU (WP:RUIRLFLAG), in cases such as this it is not for us to invent a flag.

Flag of Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland has not had its own flag since 1972. The use of the Ulster banner has proven controversial and we should avoid its use where not necessary. Sports organisations are independent of wiki and its policies for example the Irish Football Association and its players can use what ever flag the organisations consider to be their flag and we should follow their lead

Comments
You can leave comments and suggestions here if you wish. My main aim here to the invention of flags for Ireland, the over use of the tricolour and the re-purposing of the 4 province flag as a solution to the there should be a tri-colour here debates. Gnevin (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've alerted User:Andrwsc about this discussion. He maintains the flag icon templates and is aware of Ireland-related matters. The above seems pretty much inline with current practice, but I think could be trimmed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I belive this is current practice also, I am just getting tired of repeating this every time someone feels like adding a random Ireland flag, it would be nice to be able to point to a summary of CON Gnevin (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be nice too. I'm in support. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only comment I have for now is that if a reliable source use the tricolour and/or Ulster banner for a particular context, then there is no good reason for Wikipedia not to do the same. I'm thinking of a situation such as the PGA TOUR, whose website typically uses flags on tournament results pages and player bio pages. So if they use the tricolour for Pádraig Harrington and the Ulster banner for Graeme McDowell, then a similar use of flag icons on pages such as 2009 PGA Championship should be perfectly acceptable.  The text above seems to only consider organisations on the island of Ireland itself and how they use flags, but does not consider accepted flag usage by outside organisations.  I remember that the snooker WikiProject ran into some similar situations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, 100% agree. What I meant was that as per WP:Flagcruft if FIFA,IRB what ever the apt governing body say goes if they say the flag is a drunk leprecon, then the flag is a drunk leprecon. Can you edit the text above where it suggests this, I can't see it Gnevin (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the underlying principle here; we should not use a controversial flag unless said flag is officially used in that context. For rugby, it's a difficult situation, because the flag is copyrighted. With regards to association football, FIFA uses the ulster banner and the tricolour for the North and the Republic respectively.  WFCforLife (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes but I am struggling to get the point across that we use the Irish Hockey flag for hockey teams,players etc and in cases like soccer we use the flag fifa says Gnevin (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TBH I'd list the exceptions. They are so few. I'm surprised the Ice Hockey Association flies the tricolour. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The exceptions can be seen here .I'd rather not point someone here and they turn around and say Ha! tiddlywinks isn't listed I'm using X flag. I think if we tighten up the text some what we can get the point across clearly but it's not a deal breaker for me  Gnevin (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any other comments here? Can I add to the MOS? Gnevin (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add it just yet. There has been relatively little input into the discussion, and none at all from potential flag-warriors.  Plus, some of the language is a bit iffy: "It is not for us to declare..." or "It is not for us to invent..." is not Manual of Style language; "such usage would be orginal research or re-purposing a flag beyond it's legitimate scope", however strongly you believe it, is still only an opinion and shouldn't be stated as fact in a MOS.  Scolaire (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. You can edit the text above remove some of the language like "It is not for us to declare..." or "It is not for us to invent..." . Gnevin (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to the UB, if there is no reliable source that it is used by the governing body of the sport then it doesn't go in, even if it is tiddlywinks. BigDunc  15:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

 * I think the text as propose is quite longwinded and argumentative in parts (understandably so). I propose the following as a more suscinct version:

Flags

For matters relating to the Republic of Ireland, use the tricolour. For Northern Ireland between 1921 and 1972, use the Ulster banner.

At this time, neither the island of Ireland nor Northern Ireland have a universally recognised flag. In those instances, if an organisation uses a flag or banner to represent the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland, use that flag or banner to represent teams, bodies or people under its aegis. If that image is copyrighted (such with as the IRFU banner) or if it the organisatation uses no particular flag or banner, do not use any flag.

For Irish states and polities at various times use the following:


 * 🇮🇪 Ireland (or Republic of Ireland), 1922-
 * Northern Ireland, 1921-1972
 * Southern Ireland
 * 🇮🇪 Ireland, 1801-1922 (as a constituent country within the UK)
 * Kingdom of Ireland, 1541-1800

Do not use any flag to represent Gaelic Ireland, the following flag may be used to represent the Lordship of Ireland:


 * Lordship of Ireland, 1169-1541


 * --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it, expressed what I've attempted to say above with out the long-windedness and complexity Gnevin (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Was the Saltire ever actually used, on it's own, as the flag of Ireland? If it wasn't, I don't believe it should be used as a flag to represent Ireland. Better even to use the Union flag... --HighKing (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was once recognised in an old Dutch document on flags a couple of centuries ago as representing Ireland. A variation of it was also used by the Regiment Irlanda (raised in 1698) of the Spanish army and was still in service by the Napoleonic Wars, and i think still is. Heres an old pic of the variation used by them. And as it is Saint Patricks Saltire which is how Ireland is represented on the Union Flag i don't see a real reason for objection to it however i do accept - was it officially used for Ireland by the United Kingdom - its usage by the government when re-designing the Union Flag may suggest so.
 * The only thing i can say that i find odd is why the Lordship of Ireland is dated - 1690-1541. Mabuska (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, great info. I fixed the dates and I also found this helpful.  --HighKing (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats great info too, i forgot it was originally a Geraldine emblem. Mabuska (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IRFU flag
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * ''The following discussion is an archived debate . Please do not modify it.

splitting non related discussion, it really should be at WP:RU and has been discussed to death at WP:RUIRLFLAG Gnevin (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. "The flag used by the governing body to represent the international team when playing away internationals"?
 * I don't think we should be such a stickler with the emblems of the IRFU etc. OK, the official emblem is copyright but there are similar emblems we can use rather than leaving a black hole. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The IRFU situation ain't great but we are caught between a rock and a hard place . We can't invent an icon just because we don't like the black hole. WP:RUIRLFLAG explains this in greater detail Gnevin (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I'd like to propose a solution for the case of Rugby Union. It is really frustrating esthetically to have teams in the Heineken Cup with flag icons except for Ireland (I know esthetics may seem a second order problem, but it still worth looking for solutions). As stated here the IRFU logo is copyrighted. In almost all other Wikipedia language version (Welsh, German, French, Italian, Spanish) they use the Shamrock to represent Ireland: [[Image:Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg|16px]]. As stated on the Shamrock page, it is a symbol commonly representing the Ireland in sport and in particular in rugby. It is neutral, used in both part of Ireland and, as far as know, free from any political meaning and conflict. So what about doing like the other wikis and use this symbol for the Irish teams in the Heineken Cup?Gpeilon (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, images are meant to be illustrative of the topic, adding information or illustrating an aspect more efficiently than prose could. The flags in sports articles are an exception to this, since they are just a convenient way to show the nationality of the competing team or individual. I think it should be clear that, as long as the default is for countries to be represented by flag images, having some flag for Ireland is better than having no flag. There are two options where the flag is copyrighted: My feeling is that option 2. is better, because dangers 2. and 3. can be avoided easily and danger 1. can be avoided with a big warning label on the relevant File page. Bear in mind that these flags are shown at 20-pixel icon level; a ballpark resemblance to the real flag will suffice. jnestorius(talk) 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) use a generic noncopyrighted flag, such as the Shamrock flag. The dangers are:
 * 2) it might be mistaken for an official flag
 * 3) it might not be recognisable as representing Ireland
 * 4) it might cause offence, either specific to the flag (e.g. the four-provinces flag is sometimes considered Republican) or on general principal
 * 5) the other is to use a noncopyrighted flag specifically created to resemble the copyrighted flag. For example, the IRFU flag has a green background, the four provincial crests, and the IRFU shamrock-rugbyball logo in the middle; we might use a green background, the four provincial crests, and a generic shamrock logo in the middle. The dangers are:
 * 6) it might be mistaken for the official flag
 * 7) it might be too like the official flag and breach copyright
 * 8) it might be too unlike the official flag and unrecognisable
 * Creating an unofficial flag with the intention of resembling the official one is still copyvio. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean it violates WP:COPYVIO, or it violates copyright law? I would have thought the law would recognise the difference between "ballpark resemblance" and "passing off". If you have legal knowledge a cite would be appreciated. I can't navigate to relevant info on Wikipedia; threshold of originality is rather vague. jnestorius(talk) 02:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be any sort of expert on copyright. What I do know is that copyright covers derivative works. Any logo would therefore need to be different enough from the real thing to credibly claim that it is wasn't a derivative work of the IRFU's flag. Given that it would be specifically created to be used at 20px, it would need to meet that criteria at 20px. In short, it would be a lot of trouble to go to, and even then the image might not be usable. WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, only the IRFU logo is copyright. The IRFU flag is an uncopyrightable arrangement of several components, all of which are themselves uncopyrightable except for the IRFU logo. Therefore, if we remove the single copyrighted element, what remains is uncopyrightable. jnestorius(talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If, as Gpeilon says above, the shamrock icon is used on many other wikis to represent Irish rugby, then I think we can take it that it would be sufficiently recognisable, and anyway, anybody that follows international rugby in the northern hemisphere is familiar with the shamrock, the leek, the thistle and the rose. For the same reason, I can't see how it could cause offence to anybody.  As for "official" flags and "unofficial" flags, who says there has to be a flag at all?  All that is required, as far as I can see, is an icon representing nationality.  Scolaire (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point. Maybe if we used a non-rectangular icon (i.e. with transparent background), it would be obvious that it was not any kind of flag, official or otherwise. Though it might be interepreted as an official logo... jnestorius(talk) 16:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But interpreted by whom? Who would go to an entry in a table in an article on a competition to find out what the official logo was?  And official logo of what?  The Irish nation(s) or the IRFU?  National flags are used for the other rugby nations, so in the absence of a flag there's no reason to think the shamrock is the official logo of anything.  Scolaire (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody would go to an entry in a table in an article on a competition with the intention of finding out what the official logo was, but they might find it out unintentionally. If you happen to be reading Tennis at the 2009 Summer Universiade, or Athletics at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres, you might assume that the respective icons shown for Taipei and Germany were in some sense official; and in fact you would be right in those cases. If 1991 Rugby World Cup used some icon for Ireland, you would be wrong to make a similar assumption. The question then is how to minimise the danger of making such an assumption. Having no icon at all is one obvious way, but it has the drawback of being ugly and anomalous. jnestorius(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll rephrase my question, then. What is the danger inherent in an innocent reader jumping to the conclusion that the shamrock is the official logo of...something?  What consequences do you foresee that it is desirable to avoid?  Alternatively, what if the innocent reader concludes, there being no icon at all, that the official logo of...something...is a white something on a white background, or that having a flag or icon of any sort is forbidden by law, on pain of some awful penalty?  More simply, why is it in any way important?  Scolaire (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be ideas being suggested here which are repeats from past discussions and I would suggest everyone read WP:RUIRLFLAG and the 3 discussions linked there if they have not already. There is no solution to this problem the flags is WP:COPY anything else is WP:OI Gnevin (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gnevin. The most salient statement in the previous discussions is "The practice of inventing a new icon to fill a perceived need for one is not simply deprecated but expressly forbidden by policy, as it constitutes original research." This is no longer in MOS:ICON and is not in WP:OI either. Assuming that it is still implicit, the options seem to be:
 * change MOS:ICON to prohibit national flag icons from sports partly but not entirely based on nations
 * change MOS:ICON to relax the restriction on ersatz pseudo-nation icons
 * put up with gaps in the flag coverage of sports partly but not entirely based on nations, e.g. at Ospreys (rugby team)
 * One might take this up at MOS:ICON, but not here. jnestorius(talk) 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the point on "inventing a new icon" concerns the Shamrock. I mean nobody can "invent" the Shamrock. A drawing from a Wikipedian will represent it not invent it, I think we all agree with it. In the same way the Wikipedian who drew the Ying Yang picture [[Image:Yin_and_Yang.svg|14px]] did not invent it, he/she just represented an existing symbol.Gpeilon (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the question of a flag of Ireland is a delicate question, but frankly I think the reluctance to use anything is a bit too much. In the discussion you quote (thanks for the links) some say that the Shamrock in WP:OR. You were the first to raise the point on WP:OR, though no specifically on the Shamrock but for the use of flags for Ireland in general. I understand your general point but I think the use of the Shamrock in RU got thrown away in the midst of this general discussion too quickly.

Is the use of the Shamrock to represent Irish RU teams WP:OR? Are Wikipedians inventing that the Shamrock represents Ireland in RU? As stated on the Shamrock page it is the symbol of Ireland in Rugby. The WP:OR argument is possibly OK for other flags but not for the Shamrock which is the symbol of RU Irish teams. I am not contesting your general point on Irish flags. I am saying "let's use the shamrock in RU" because it makes sense and is not WP:OR.

I think there is nothing political and nothing wrong about using the Shamrock with which all Irish people can identify. It would be nice esthetically. Beyond esthetics... To be a bit more profound, as an neutral external observer (not Irish) I think that the Irish team is a great symbol of unity with players from all parts of Ireland while in the mean time the identity of both parts are respected (both anthems are played). On the contrary the absence of any icon to represent Irish RU team seems to stress on the division of Ireland which precludes the use of any single icon. The absence of flag for Irish teams is very noticeable on the RU pages and sends by default a negative message (we can't/mustn't represent unity). The use of the Shamrock is neutral, and nice visually. It is the symbol of the RU team, so why decide here that it can't represent Ireland in RU? From the links you sent, it seems to me that your opposition to the Shamrock was not consensual Gnevin (sorry I don't want to sound antagonistic!). There was clearly lots of contributors for the Shamrock which was voted on. I think it could be discussed again in the light of the fact that it is used in most other Wiki editions and the fact that my suggestion is only limited to the RU and does not question the general point you made about Ireland. Why not line up arguments, then conduct a survey (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) on this specific point about an icon for RU? Gpeilon (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As per WP:OI Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR . Now the Shamrock isn't a original idea but pinning it on to the IRFU is. The IRFU don't use a shamrock for their teams and as such we can't introduce the unpublished idea that they do. The North has flag issues why don't we invent one for the North also ? Con isn't the matter here Policy is clear. Also if you want this changed its OI that needs to changes not MOSICON Gnevin (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the policy may well be correct, but I don't think it's "clear"; several of us have read it without drawing the same inference. If it means what you say it means then it should say so explicitly; the claim that it is obviously implicit is refuted by the existence of this discussion. jnestorius(talk) 09:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if we really want to flog a dead donkey I suggest we do it at WP:RU instead of here Gnevin (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why argue endlessly about the interpretation of of MOSICON or OI when there is a policy that overrides both of them: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. If ever there was a case tailor-made for IAR, this is it.  Scolaire (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as with WP:COPY and WP:V . WP:OR can't be ignored, they are core to wiki's creditablity , how does inventing a icon improve the encyclopedia?Gnevin (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the up coming Hyperbole but I have to show how ridiculous the suggestion we invent a flag is. <Hyperbole>Since we are IAR and just making up stuff, I've took it upon myself to fix the NI flag issue . I think we all agree the Red hand is a universal symbol in NI,I've modified slightly but since we are making stuff up I though why not 50px  . I will now bot spam this to 1,000's of articles</Hyperbole>  Gnevin (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh! I hadn't read this before I wrote the below ↓ --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To throw a spanner in the works ... What would a decision like this mean for the flag of Norhern Ireland. Suppose we say, it's OK to use an "icon" to represent Ireland when it comes to sport. Why then could we not use an "icon" to represent Northern Ireland when it comes to some other area of life? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How does using a shamrock (it's already been invented!) improve Wikipedia? It allows Irish rugby clubs to have a recognisable symbol, without offending anybody, without breaking any laws and without any good reason not to do it except a bunch of shouty blue acronyms.  It's a win-win situation!  That's what IAR is for - it has no conceivable purpose apart from that, yet it is a policy!  If you could come up with a similar icon for NI you would earn the undying gratitude of hundreds of editors.  Your hyperbolic Red Hand shows the absurdity of your argument, not mine.  Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why if we are just plain make stuff up shouldn't my NI flag be used. And why stop at icons, lets make up a name to resolve the Ireland naming issue and Derry also. Why not invent some history you hear the Dubs won 17 All Ireland in a row ? Making stuff up can't happen its simply not what wiki does  Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop being silly! Nobody's talking about making up stuff and you know it.  Your NI flag can't be used because nobody would want it.  Making up match results or funny names for Derry would offend people.  If you find the shamrock offensive say so, and explain why.  If you can't debate sensibly don't expect people to listen to you.  Scolaire (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't find it offensive . I find it wrong. I don't understand how you can differentiate between making up a flag and making anything else up. Sorry if I'm a little snippy but I've discussed this 4 times now, each time with the same arguments and the same results. In fact I came here so I won't have to keep repeating the same old discussions and here we are repeating the same of arguments Gnevin (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does it make a difference to the original research argument that this is an icon we are talking about? Perhaps... It should be said that the flag templates render "purely decorative" images only (using the W3C definition of "purely decorative") and that they cannot be seen at full resolution without knowing the image name and typing it into the address bar. They serve only as a navigational aid to the reader, unlike larger images placed in infoboxes, galleries, or alongside prose text, which certainly must have encyclopedic value. Consider the 2003 Rugby World Cup article: the flag icons are a useful aid when scanning the list of results, as individual teams stand out clearer than text alone. I can find matches involving "Australia" easier because of the flag icon than I can otherwise, especially with "Argentina" in the same group because those words look similar when speed reading. The same effect might be possible if we colour-coded those results tables (for example, look at the technique used in NCAA Season 85 basketball tournaments), but flags are easier to understand when national teams are involved, and many reliable external sources use flag icons on their results webpages, so readers may be familiar with that style. But in both cases, little coloured images are used to make it easier for the reader to identify teams, and nothing more. To jump from that statement to the assertion that we are misrepresenting the official flag of a team, well, that's a stretch, in my opinion. I think broader concerns about inappropriate flag icon usage can be handled in other ways. For example, there was some recent edit warring over the flag icons on the Pan-Celticism article. In that case, the little icons don't have any navigational value whatsoever (the list is small, and no entries are repeated), so could probably removed on those grounds. The issue of an all-Ireland flag for that page would then be a moot point. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK so I'll try to go forward. First let's recap the (legitimate) potential concerns on the use of the Shamrock for Irish teams in RU.
 * 1) WP:OI: I think we can easily agree on this point that the Shamrock is not an original image. As Gnevin quotes: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments
 * 2) WP:COPY: The Shamrock is clearly in the public domain, so there is no copyright issue either.
 * 3) WP:OR: Gnevins raises a valid concern about the choice to use the Shamrock for RU teams. Clearly, the Irish RU teams do not enter the stadium with a Shamrock flag. Though Leicester does not show up with an English flag in Heineken Cup nor Stade Francais does with a French flag. We can decompose this concern in two part:
 * 4) Is the association of Shamrock with Ireland OR? No definitely not as the Shamrock page clearly states. "The shamrock is also informally used as an emblem for sports teams, state organisations, and troops abroad from Ireland: Celtic F.C., the IRFU, [...]."
 * 5) However, there is a legitimate concern that Wikipedia could suggest that the Shamrock is a flag for Ireland, which would be OR. I would like to stress that this is the only concern about the use of Shamrock for Irish RU teams. So it is the only point we need to discuss to solve this issue.

I think that most readers a minimum knowledgeable in rugby or Irish culture would understand that a Shamrock in front of Irish RU teams is not a flag, but just a symbol representing Ireland. However because other icons in similar place are usually national flags (though it is not a rule), the concern 3.2 is worth considering.

Here is a simple solution: let's use the Shamrock with this picture like other Wikipedia editions, but transfer the icon from 'Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg' to 'Shamrock_Ireland.svg'. Any person curious of this icon can click on it and read in the description of the icon: "So, the image that is used on Wikipedia instead of a flag to represent Ireland in these contexts is a generic shamrock. This is not a real flag, and it is not used by the IRFU. It is just a Wikipedia-specific symbol. This image does not belong in Category:Flags of Ireland since it is not a real flag." I think it is perfectly clear and does not entail any confusion. By the way, the interesting discussions listed in the icon page: here and here show that the participants of the RU project are actually looking for an icon for Ireland, and that the Shamrock was one the most considered options.Gpeilon (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I don't contend the Shamrock is an OI, I contend that when its looks like a flag and is used like a flag it becomes a OI flag with a non OI shamrock on it. The sum of the whole has to be considered.
 * Note 2 I don't contend the Shamrocks association of with Ireland is OR or even with the IRFU ,I contend that when its looks like a flag and is used like a flag it becomes a OR flag with a non OR shamrock on it. The sum of the whole has to be considered.
 * We shouldn't assume the reader has any knowledge of Rugby ,let alone the complex nature of Irish politics . I wasn't aware the flag we used to use was a wiki invention till I went to Croke Park looked around and couldn't see this shamrock flag. It was presented in such a way here as to be the IRFU's flag. You Simple solution doesn't work because it's plain wrong . This  is the IRFU flag end of story. The shamrock icon/flag/logo/picture is not. You've invented the association between this flag and the IRFU just to suit wiki the definition of WP:OR, It is just a Wikipedia-specific symbol that's OR on a sliver platter right there! . Once again I'll ask why we are not discussing this at WP:RU?Gnevin (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First I clearly not invent anything, just quoting other pages. Second, if somebody made a statement which is not the defense for my argument, so what. Let's remove the "Wikipedia-specific" bit as the Shamrock is clearly not Wikipedia specific. Third, yes let's talk on the RU page as they were looking for a symbol!Gpeilon (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Gpeilon: Please note what I wrote above. A user cannot click on the icon to see the image page (when flag templates such as are used).  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, we should therefore not use such a template, but specifically [[Image:Flag_of_Ireland_rugby.svg|14px]]Gpeilon (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that would violate WP:Alternative text for images and WP:Accessibility. We do not want a screen reader rendering something like "flag of Ireland rugby dot ess vee gee Ireland".  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_unionGpeilon (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Links at the top of the page
The list of links at the top of the page is long and somewhat random. Can I suggest: Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since discussion is no longer ongoing at IECOLL, and since the collaboration was never meant to be just a forum for discussion of the naming issue, it could be dropped,
 * The two notice boards do indeed contain "ongoing news and tasks", but hardly ever related to style, so they could also be dropped,
 * The other two should go into a "see also" section at the end of the article, per WP:FOOTER (This is a manual of style, after all).


 * Did this and copy edited the MOS a bit (no change to meaning). Also added the loyalist/republican/unionist/nationalist (no capitalisation) element per WP:IE. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Southern Ireland and Kingdom of Ireland end dates
Southern_Ireland says ended on 6th and Kingdom_of_Ireland says 1/1/1801. Both of these where probably a ended and 12:00:00 new state started at 12:00:01 sort of thing. Gnevin (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Ireland ended at the stoke of mid-night of New Years Eve 1800 and New Years Day 1801. Southern Ireland, IIRC, was (in British legal history) voted out of existence by the Parliament of Southern Ireland when it accepted the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Strictly, that (I think) happened some time in the afternoon of 6th of December 1922 (after the Dáil had accepted it). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough Gnevin (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ulster banner 1924
The arms were not drawn up till 1924; the flag came after that. In 1921-4 there was no flag for NI as distinct from the Union Flag. jnestorius(talk) 17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Derry vs. Londonderry
Why not use Derry for predominately Catholic areas and Londonderry for predominately protestant areas? I live in a town which is over 90% catholic? Why can't it be said to be in Derry, since everyone who actually lives there calls it that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puredavid (talk • contribs) 21:11, 31 March 2010


 * Because it's not the actual name of the county unfortunately. There has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland. A lot of people in Northern Ireland call it The Province, and refer to the country below as Down South, but those don't make them names either. Unfortunately, and not a lot of people like this, the county was called County Londonderry since it's creation and the name of it has never changed. Sure some call it County Derry, but that doesn't make it correct.
 * Also you are operating under an assumption that Catholics always refer to it in one way, and Protestants another, which is pure original research and a sweeping statement that cannot be made. Canterbury Tail   talk  21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I told you elsewhere, when the county was created it was called County Doire, which when the British arrived was anglicised to be called County Derry. The name County Doire predates the name Londonderry by many, many years. Your understanding of Irish history is very limited.  People call it County Derry because that is it's original name and also because either name is acceptable, it should be that those who call it Derry should be allowed to continue to refer to it as Derry.
 * If you look at the Dungiven article you will see numerous references to people playing for county teams, under the name County Derry. Numerous examples abound.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puredavid (talk • contribs) 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is more complex than you make out, Canterbury, and it is a fair question to ask, particularly from a new editor.
 * David, long-story-short: it's for the sake of peace. Wikipedia is given to edit wars. The "arrangement" over Derry/Londonderry is a pragmatic one that has lasted the test of time. The logic behind it is that contrary to what you wrote (and many people think) there never was a "County Derry". The county today was formed mainly from the former County Coleraine. The city, of course, existed before then and (after the city was renamed) the new country was named after it in the manner in which most Irish counties were given names. So in a kind of zero-sum game, the county is called "Londonderry" on Wikipedia since that is what it was first called and the city is called "Derry" on Wikipedia since that is what it was first called.
 * About the county football team, its only the actual city and the county that are affected by this "agreement". Other things, like the football team, aren't affected.
 * Remember, this is only Wikipedia. It is easy to get worked up over things like this, but don't. Some pragmatic give and take over matters like this can be for the benefit of the entire project. --RA (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The football teams etc are more complex as well. The fact is the GAA has set up a body called the County Derry GAA, that oversees the sporting in County Londonderry (are we all confused yet?) Since that is their name of the organisation, the name of the actual geopolitical county has no bearing on the GAA or it's usage, as long as it's referring to their leagues and setup. Once you refer to the county itself, it's back to County Londonderry.
 * It is unfortunately very confusing, and makes for very awkward situations. I think it would be best if we just renamed it all County Bob or some such and be done with it. In fact anything other than Londonderry would have saved generations of aggravation, but the companies and crown just didn't have that foresight unfortunately. Canterbury Tail   talk  02:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're getting now off-topic now but some quick thoughts on what I meant when I said that it is more complex than you make out.
 * In one jurisdiction, the jurisdiction in which the city lies at present (the United Kingdom), the official name of the city is Londonderry and the county, County Londonderry. In the jurisdiction that the city and county neighbours (the Republic of Ireland), the official name of the city is is Derry and the county, County Derry. For the purpose of passports, in both jurisdictions, either name is accepted as official (the ROI office only changed their policy twelve months ago, the UK office have accepted Derry for far longer). The city's charter may say Londonderry but (for most of its life, after a name change) the city's council is named Derry City Council (and only last month the council contemplated petitioning to change the charter too).
 * So it's not so straight forwards as saying "it's not the actual name" (I appreciate that you were talking about the county only). There are two official names, even within the same jurisdiction, according to one's perspective - and that's before we even begin to talk about what the city or county are "commonly called": in Northern Ireland, Ireland, the United Kingdom or internationally.
 * Consistency is good. Pragmatism to over-come sources of edit warring is good also. But this is simply a geographic naming dispute and the current arrangement is good because it means that we don't come down in favour of either side of it.
 * BTW, I don't think it should be renamed to County Bob, not only because there has no meaningful reason to call it that, but because then we might end up arguing over whether city's/county's proper name was Robert/County Robert. Better to leave it as it is rather than repeat the mistakes of the London livery companies. :-P --RA (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The successful bid for the City of Culture used the term Derry/Londonderry, to include all. Surely the Wiki article that describes the City of Culture piece should remain consistent for this specific article? Journalists report on things as they are e.g. when Cassius Clay changed his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.183.14 (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we simply use Derry. We are not bound to follow how external sources choose to refer to the city. O Fenian (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * County Derry has never existed in any form whatsoever as i've pointed out many times before. For the unknowing IP's the territories that existed before what is now County Londonderry are in backwards order:
 * County Londonderry
 * County Coleraine, a chuck of County Tyrone (Barony of Loughinsholin - modern Magherafelt Council District), and a bit of Counties Antrim (east of the River Bann) and Donegal (west of the River Foyle)
 * Oireachtas O Cathain (O'Cahans Country) & Loch Inse O Fhloinn (Loughinsholin)
 * Ciannactha/Tirkeeran/Fir-na-creeve/Killetra/Glenconkeyne/Clandonnell/Tomlagh
 * Various under-kingdoms belonging to the over-kingdoms of the Cenel nEoghain and Airgialla
 * Not once do the history books make reference to a historical County Derry/Doire/Daire.


 * The city issue is a pile of dog's balls though - the modern city built in the Platation of Ulster is not the same settlement that existed beforehand. The O'Cahans (iirc) destroyed the original settlement of Derry which was situated on the east bank of the Foyle. The British built a brand new planned-city on the west bank of the Foyle. Just because they share a common element in their names does not make ancient Derry and modern Londonderry one and the same even if modern Londonderry has expanded to cover where the ancient Derry existed. Though the issue may have been avoided in King James I went ahead and called it what he originally planned to - Derrie. Newtownderry would have even been a good choice - and i bet there wouldn't be a single arguement about it. Just because it has the prefix London and the fact they complain solely about that one instance of "renaming" rather than other places which were renamed such as Draperstown and Randalstown etc. shows their real intentions and beliefs. Mabuska (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Other conventions also apply. When using historical sources, it may be suitable to use the name currently in use at the time, perhaps with an explanatory footnote. A number of WWII sources, including official US reports, refer to "Londonderry" as a city or a naval base and when including direct quotations, it's best to use whatever the source does. I think the WWII usage continues with Londonderry Port, but that may have a different origin. (I recall that one local broadcaster referred, or refers, to "Stroke City", ie DerrystrokeLondonderry.) Folks at 137 (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ironically if i remember correctly, Londonderry did or has the highest rates of heart disease or strokes or something so the term Stroke City fits in more ways than one. Mabuska (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC which could affect this MOS
It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Subject style guide. Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Placename naming convention proposal
An issue has currently come to my attention when i tried to edit a few Irish versions of placenames in Northern Ireland to a modern spelling however this ended with Superfopp reverting them to the version that they were. Problem is both our versions are virtually legit and have source backing and in most cases it hinges on whether or not the word is being used nominative or genitive or a different spelling and meaning altogether. Example being: Tullylish: So which spelling? Wikitionary has an entry for lios but not lis. Do we use nominative or genitive?
 * Tullylish can be spelt as either Tullach or Tulaigh (both meaning hillock) and Lios or Lis (both meaning fort). Tullach and Lios are the nominative - whilst tulaigh is genitive and lis i'm not sure about but i have seen used in a source.

Superfopp uses Logaimn as his primary source however despite being the official placenames commission for the Republic of Ireland and its scope covers Northern Ireland - it isn't official in Northern Ireland - and its versions cannot be assumed to be the definitive version to be used. I use several sources including PlaceNamesNI which lists all known historically recorded translations given but doesn't do any translating themselves as far as i can tell. I also use the book Irish Place Names ISBN 0-7171-3396-6, which details the different variations of words used and some of its lists conflict with Logaimn. It states Tullylish as Tulach Lis, however use Lios is other entries for the same meaning of Lis.

A more troublesome example is Trillick, which is given as Trileac. It can derive from Tri Leac meaning three stones and there are sources for this translation. However it can also derive from Tri Liag meaning three standing stones or three pillar stones of which some sources use. From Trileac you'd assume its from Tri Leac, but i believe one source states Trileac as being from Tri Liag.

Another issue is does an Irish version need to be given for places that aren't derived from Irish and have no Irish version used - other than in Logaimn which does retro-translations for such places or by a local GAA? Randalstown has been retro-translated as Baile Raghnaill on Logaimn and whilst it is used by the local GAA, Randalstown was called Dunmore beforehand so its name didn't originate from it.

Another case in point is Waringsford. Logaimn retro-translates it as Áth an Bhairínigh, however this name is not used by anything other than Logaimn, the Ulster Placenames Society, Wiki mirror sites for Waringsford in Northern Ireland and as it is named after a Mr. Waring of the mid 17th century from who Waringsford and Waringstown developed from. Can it be used?

I don't think Irish placenames have any official legal position in Northern Ireland though they can be used by councils so should places that don't originate from Irish have to follow the convention of having an Irish version after them?

So after all this waffling i propose the following in respects to placenames in Northern Ireland:


 * 1) All placesnames that derive from Irish i.e. Tullylish to use the  tag rather than just  or whichever it is as Irish names do not have the same official standing as they do in the Republic of Ireland.
 * 2) If a placename has various different legit and sourced spellings, rather than edit-war or over-crowd the lede with a list of both or more - instead leave it out of the lede and create an eptymology section and detail it there.
 * 3) If a settlement doesn't have an Irish origin, for example Waringstown, leave it out. If retrospective translation is found, i.e. from Logaimn or a local GAA, declare it in an eptymology section and declare as a retrospective translation.
 * 4) As i intend to create an eptymology section for each place in Northern Ireland anyways to detail previous spellings and names used over the years - put the Irish in there rather than in the lede.

Another problem is also the Irish tag used in UK info boxes. If it doesn't have official legal status in Northern Ireland must it be used? The Ulster-Scots tag sometimes added into the UK info box is rarely used for placenames. And if it has various legit spellings - what should be used? So a second list of proposals, this time for the infobox:


 * 1) Leave out the Irish version
 * 2) Declare in brackets after the Irish version - unofficial
 * 3) Other ideas on this one would be welcome

Please vote/discuss or whichever as this needs sorted to create a concensus to be used for Northern Ireland in my opinion. Mabuska (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I came across a related issue recently. I have a bot request in to roll out irish place name across articles that don't have it. Originally, consensus was to run this across all Irish towns and villages but when I dug deeper I noticed that derive was more prevalent in Northern Ireland. That seemed appropriate to me since, like you point out, the Irish-langauge name isn't official. I was intending on creating a new template, similar to derive for NI places - but that has the house-keeping categories of the irish place name template - and then roll that out in a second run. So ...
 * On your first suggestion, I agree that NI places should be in the form of "XXX (from the Irish: YYY, meaning ZZZ)" rather than "XXX (Irish: YYY, meaning ZZZ)"; but would create a new template to help with the house-keeping cats and then run the bot process again per the discussion at the Wikiproject Ireland.
 * On point two, I wouldn't just leave it out. The same issue is often true for places in ROI. Let each article work it out but if a place name derives from Irish then it should appear in parenthesis in the lead and have its meaning explained where possible. (In the case of Tullylish, both logainm.ie and placenamesni.org are consistent: Tulaigh Lis. So, I'd go with that.)
 * On point three, I agree that where there is no Irish, let's not make it up. The same applies to places in ROI. I think the "derive" approach for places in NI should resolve many of these issues.
 * On point four, we are very much in opposition to each other. The Irish-language name, where appropriate, should appear in brackets after the English name in the lead. That's current consensus. That's in line with common practice across the entire 'pedia, not just Irish places. I think tampering with it, or making rash wide-scale changes, is a recipe for ill-feeling and edit warring.
 * About the info box, the same can be said for places in Scotland and Wales - and even Man and the Channel Islands. As you probably know, there is no official list of place names for anywhere in the UK ... so even the English name is (strictly speaking) "unofficial". I don't see the need to fret over it so long as names aren't simply made. (By the way, there was agreement in principle a few months ago to give a stab at a single UK and the IRE infoboxes. Once upon a time, before the UK info box existed, all places on the island of Ireland had a single IRL info box. Do you have an opinion about that?)
 * You may be interested in adding your name to the Gaeilge task force. --RA (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the template I was going to roll out for NI places: irish derived place name. It would help identify places without Irish names and without translations for those names, in the same was that irish place name does. --RA (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RA on points one, three and four, and the infobox. On point two, is it possible to modify the template to give two alternative derivations e.g. Trillick (from the Irish: Trí Leac, meaning "Three stones" or Trí Liag, meaning "Three pillar stones")? Scolaire (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. That is a common feature I've seen on many articles. I'll update the templates to accept multiple forms.
 * I notice, that the loganim.ie site divides place names between "validated" and "non-validated" (see here). For ROI places that means that they appear as the official name on various place-name orders. Certain NI places are also described as "validated". I'm going to enquire by email as to what they mean by that. --RA (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If a combined UK and IRE infobox can be done without great difficulty or issues i don't see why not. The multiple derivations in one tag isn't a bad method to use instead. On the convention concensus for the Irish name after the English name thats why i put forward these proposals for discussion on whether it should relate to Northern Ireland or not or if something else can be agreed upon.
 * The problem with Logaimn for me is that what it declares as official for the ROI shouldn't mean thats its official for Northern Ireland which is under different jurisidiction - an email enquiry is a good idea.
 * A NI specific derive tag is also a good idea. I am however failing to see so far from the schema for the irish derived place name tag how it will identify places that aren't derived from Irish and so don't have an Irish name? For example once again Waringstown. The tag adds in 'from the Irish' with translate or not allowed - yet how can this be used for places that aren't derived from Irish? Upperlands, Randalstown, Warrenspoint, Draperstown etc. would be other examples.
 * Also your suggestion of point three is a bit unclear for me; do you mean that if a place isn't derived from Irish then a retrospective translation shouldn't be added to it, say one that Logaimn.ie or some historian or GAA coined name centuries after the place was built? Or do you mean for ones that don't have any retrospective translations at all?
 * Mabuska (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just about loganim.ie first, it doesn't declare anything as being official. For places in ROI, it seems to simply go with the official list from the ROI state (which would seem sensible). For what it's worth, placenamesni.org also seems to have links with the Placenames Branch of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in the South (see here). I think drawing jurisdictional lines in the sand (almost literally) isn't the best way to go. Both loganim.ie and placenamesni.org are reliable sources (and we are very lucky to have them) and I wouldn't be surprised if the email I get back from loganim.ie is that what they count as being "validated" for an NI place name is whatever the people at placenamesni.org say is the case. (TBH I doubt there can even be much distinction made between the loganim.ie people and the placenamesni.org people. In human terms, this is a relatively small island and I suspect that these people work closely together on these matters.)
 * About the template, what it can allow us to do is this:
 * Compare the contents of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Irish derived place name with Category:Towns and villages in Northern Ireland by county to identify places that do not have a Gaelic translation/derivation. We can then can either add one or tick it off the list as not being required.
 * Identify places that don't have an explanation of the Gaelic name, see Category:Untranslated Irish place names, and either add it or mark it as not being applicable
 * About "retrospective translation", we only talking about place names here right? Because the same arguments can be put forward for lots of things. I think we need to be careful. Currently we have a situation where Belfast is described as "Belfast (from Irish: Béal Feirste meaning 'mouth of the sandbars')" and people edit war over whether the Irish name should appear at all (either in the body or in the infobox). Meanwhile, Edinburgh is uncontroversially and straightforwardly described as, "Edinburgh (Gaelic: Dùn Èideann)". I know the language is politicised but that is a real pity. One things we could do is:
 * Where the English-language name is derived from another language, we have that derivation in parenthesis immediately after it in the lead. If the name does not derive from another language, other names can be discussed within the text after the lead (if there is one). This would be different to elsewhere in the UK and Ireland.
 * In all cases, where a (standard?) verifiable English, Irish or Scots name exits, we have that appear in the info box as normal. This would be the same as elsewhere in the UK and Ireland.
 * This would mean that in the case of Upperlands, for example, that (a) both Upperlands and Áth an Phortáin would appear in the infobox; (b) only Upperlands would appear in the lead; and (c) the meaning of the Irish name, and other spellings, like Amfordlan, could be discussed in the body (after the lead). Does that sound fair to all and sustainable? --RA (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough Upperlands takes its name from the townland of Upperland which just researching is actually derived from Irish. Talk about a bastardisation in Anglicisation years ago. However i do agree we need to be careful where we draw lines.
 * Yes i'm only talking about retrospective translations for place names. Well if Belfast is derived from Béal Feirste, something to do with the river Farset(Feirste i'm guessing) i believe, then it should be included. If its not i'm not sure.
 * I don't think thats an unreasonable proposal RA. So for example Randalstown - does that mean leaving Baile Raghnail, which is a retrotranslation (as before Randalstown was Dunmore), out of the lede. However as its used by the local GAA including it in the infobox with a description of its usage later in the article as well as older names for the area?? Sorta like i suggested with an eptymology section? Mabuska (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought you meant moving all translations/derivations to the body.
 * Funny about the Upperland example. I suppose it highlights a different problem: assuming that names aren't derived from one another. Did you get it from here? I've used that source too. It's quite useful. Randalstown gives another example: if it dates from 1650 then there really is no reasons to assume that Baile Raghnail was coined "retrospectively" by historians or the GAA. Both Randalstown/Baile Raghnail probably date from the same time. I was thinking more along the lines of street names or new towns.
 * But anyway, we're in agreement?
 * (a) In all cases, where a (standard?) verifiable English, Irish or Scots name exits, that should appear in the info box.
 * (b) Where the English-language name is derived from another language, place the derivation in parenthesis immediately after the name in the lead.
 * (c) If the name does not derive from another language, other names can be discussed within the text after the lead (if there is one).
 * (That would mean that the Irish name for Randalstown would be removed from the lead, but stay in the info box and could be discussed in the main body of the article.) --RA (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My biggest concern with Irish place name and Irish derived place name is that neither of them has any mention of references. It should be easy to add a parameter for the logainm id to get the Irish name. Logainm doesn't have English glosses of the Irish name except for a very few places, but having a reference for the Irish name, with no gloss, is far better than having an unreferenced gloss let alone an unreferenced Irish name. Of course a super-enhanced template that could accommodate other references, for name or gloss, would be better still.

On a separate point: there is a difference between a derivation and a translation. The Placenames Commission has a dual mandate to investigate historical Irish names and to recommend official Irish names; these are interconnected but not identical tasks. The derivation of "Dublin" is "dubh linn" but the translation is "Baile Átha Cliath". As pointed out, the Irish name may derive from an English original rather than vice versa. Less starkly, the official Irish translation of a placename, if such exists, will often use a modern standard spelling for each of the words; the Ordnance Survey Notebooks will use unstandardised Irish spellings or even anglophone phonetic transcriptions; older sources may represent not just older spellings or pronunciations but older by-forms of the Irish words. The pronunciation difference between "Youghal" and "Eochaill" or "Dunleary" and "Dún Laoghaire" results from changes in both spelling and pronunciation in both languages in the time since the English was spawned from the Irish. So "Youghal" doesn't really come from "Eochaill" any more than humans evolved from chimpanzees; both come from a common ancestor reconstructed by linguistic palaeontonlogy. jnestorius(talk) 18:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree 100% with your comment regarding references. Personally, every "meaning" I have added I have made a point to reference. That could be an additional parameter in the template. I (personally) have simply used &lt;ref&gt; tags ... but properly referencing these should definitely be a guideline.
 * You make an excellent point regarding the derivations. There are few places where the modern English name and is derived from the modern Irish name. Can you think of a better way of phrasing it than:
 * Dungannon (from Irish: Dún Geanainn, meaning "Geanann's fort")
 * This only affects Northern Ireland places, where stating the following would seemingly be problematic:
 * Dungannon (Irish: Dún Geanainn, meaning "Geanann's fort")
 * Finding (never mind proving) the "common root" (possibly Dúingenainn in this case?) for every place name would be impossible. Maybe:
 * Dungannon (after Irish: Dún Geanainn, meaning "Geanann's fort")
 * For places like Dublin (if Dublin was in Northern Ireland), it is being proposed that we don't include the Irish language name in the lede. --RA (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @ RA - yep i got it from that site, but used it corroborate the historical records from PlaceNamesNI from which you can see the earliest forms do relate to and you can see the gradual Anglicisation of it. On Dungannon which is one of those potentially troublesome names; Dúin (and Dún) is Scots-Gaelic for fort just as Dún is Irish-Gaelic for it - though thats not to say Old or Middle Irish never used it but in such cases the root words are virtually the same in spelling and meaning and thus root IMO. And Geanainn and Genainn are no doubt the same as well so it could derive from Dun Geanainn - just an older spelling of it. For Dublin if it was in Northern Ireland, a derive tag should be used for it to show its origin from Dubh Linn.
 * Your proposal using Randalstown is largely on the lines of what i was suggesting, however instead of could be discussed later in the article, should be discussed in an eptymology section with sources of course would be preferable i think. On Randalstown - the townland in which it was founded in is also called Randalstown, which here says is simply an English name with its previous names including Dunmore and Ballyfeoghoge amongst others all of which Randalstown doesn't clearly originate from (its named after Mr. Randal MacDonnell rather than an already existing Irish placename) and that Baile Raghnaill is simply the official Irish version but doesn't mention its use in its history of Randalstowns names.
 * @ Jnestorius - i agree that sources need added at the end of derive tags or any language tags, which i have already done to several recently to ensure verifiability. The issue of the evolution of words from Old Irish to Middle Irish to Modern Irish is an issue - however some can be upgraded to modern thanks to some published sources which have already done so. Other older sources which give a meaning for the word can be upgraded to modern spellings without much problem thanks to the given meaning (if its correct). The Ordnance Surveys aren't accurate at times as you state and some sources from the times make wild guesses at origins or meanings.
 * The Randalstown example also highlights another point of yours Jnestorius - PlaceNamesNI.org states that Randalstown was recorded as Iron Mills at one stage and that later an Anglicised version (Mullynieren) was created from an Irish translation (Muilinn Iarainn) for Iron Mills. So if Randalstown was called Mullynieren today, it would derive from Muilinn Iarainn, however a tag could be expanded to allow for it to also state that Muilinn Iarainn derives from English Iron Mills. Mabuska (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Youghal could come from Eochaill, it all depends on how it was recorded as phonetically sounding by the person who heard it. Accents and regional dialects can all cause things to be sound different than what they were meant to be. For example Tobermore, which is from An Tobar Mor (and every source i've ever seen backs this up as its really a simple one) has been Anglicised in the past as Tubbermore as thats how many people pronounced it at one stage. But in general thats the real problem with Irish origins of townlands and places - we will never know for exact what it was originally spelt or pronounced as. Mabuska (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RA's proposals on this. ~Asarlaí 23:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So RA, an example of your amendments to my proposals in operation:
 * Rock, County Tyrone, allegedly gets its name from a late 19th century quarry and not Irish
 * Logaimn only declares that the area was formerly known as Oughterard (one of the townlands in which Rock lies and possibly meaning upper height and not rock) with the only Irish vesions (containing anything that translates as rock) given from the early 20th century meaning they are more than likely translations of the English name.
 * As the English name Rock predates any recorded Irish versions of it, i.e. an Charraig, it can be determined that its name is in all probability English in origin. This would mean the Irish is removed from the lede were it currently is, and discussed within the body of the article - and for posterity, include the older names and origins if applicable for the area like Oughterard?? If an infobox is included then the Irish would be given in it. (along with reference?) Mabuska (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm thinking. Does it sound fair? --RA (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It does indeed. Mabuska (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording
A proposed wording:

For all place names on the island of Ireland, the primary languages are English and Irish. For some places names, Scots may also be a primary language. For articles on places on the island of Ireland, if the article has an info box, show the modern name in each of the appropriate primary languages (where they exist) in the info box.

All articles on places should have the common name for the place in one of the primary languages highlighted in bold in the first sentence. For articles on places in the Republic of Ireland, the common name in other primary languages should be shown in parentheses immediately after the common name in the lead. For articles on places in Northern Ireland, only show another primary langauge in parenthesis after the common name if the name in that language demonstrates the origin of the common name. For both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the names of the place in other primary languages, or etymologies of the place name, should be described in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

The meaning of place names, if not recognisable to English-speakers, should be given. For names that appear in the lead, this explanation should appear in parenthesis immediately after the common name. Otherwise, the meaning of the names should be given in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one). Such explanations should be cited to reliable sources. Translations by Wikipedians are greatly discouraged.

Generally speaking, contemporary names should reflect contemporary spelling. All place names given should be attributable to reliable sources.

--RA (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just one thing, remember that article names should be the common English name for the place. WP:IMOS doesn't override WP:EN. In the text the English should be first, as article title, then include the Irish if one can reasonably be determined. Also remember these must be sourced reliably. Other than that this looks good. Canterbury Tail   talk  15:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, sourcing is very important for all of these. And common name comes first always. For emphasis: Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). --RA (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that proposal no problems. A standard for places in Northern Ireland like this is needed to help prevent future edit-warring, arguements, and the such. Mabuska (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't like that wording; it seems very likely to encourage OR, it doesn't seem to correspond to the preceding discussion, and it contradicts Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), which I thought we were seeking to augment rather than replace. The word "should" is ambiguous: are we talking about a minimum for any non-Stub article about a place, or the nice-to-haves for, say, Good-article status? I'm not sure what you mean by "primary language"; is this being used in a technical Wikipedia sense? In an everyday-language sense, Irish is hardly a "primary language" in most of Ireland; that's part of what's driving this discussion.  Also, the wording is formidably dense; illustrative examples will be helpful if not essential. jnestorius(talk) 17:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was deliberately trying not to step on the toes of the Place names section. How does it contradict it? How would OR be encouraged? I would be very very anti any kind of encouragement for OR. I'd perfer guidelines that made it more difficult.
 * Yea, I meant "primary language" is a sense of a technical definition kind of way. It doesn't work. It was a bad idea. That can be rewritten anyway. The "shoulds" can be tightened up too. --RA (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I fully support what you're trying to say. However, I agree with Jnestorius that it needs to be more straightforward and to-the-point. The amount of words could and should be cut down. An example or two would really help. ~Asarlaí 17:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "primary language" could refer to the Gaeltacht regions of the Republic of Ireland. The example of Rock, which i gave above could be added to it to show a non-Irish origin situation, and the intro to Tobermore can be used to show an example of a place with an Irish origin. Mabuska (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd attempt
Second go...

For articles on places on the island of Ireland, show the modern name in English, Irish and, if appropriate, Scots in the infobox if the article has one.

For places in the Republic of Ireland, other names should be shown in parentheses immediately after the common name in the lead. For places in Northern Ireland, only show non-English-language names in parentheses after the bolded name if the name in that language demonstrates the origin of the common name. Other names and etymologies can be described in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

The meaning of non-English place names should be given if known. All such meanings should be fully cited. For names that appear in the lead, provide the meaning in parenthesis immediately after the common name. Otherwise, provide the meaning in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

Examples:
 * Mallow [1] ...
 * Bangor [1] ...
 * Craigavon ...

Generally speaking, contemporary names should reflect contemporary spelling. All place names given should be attributable to reliable sources.

--RA (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's much better. However, I have some questions about the examples:
 * Mallow: Do we need to repeat "Irish" twice? If not, is there a way to use the "derive" tag without adding a language?
 * Bangor: I think "after Irish..." is likely to be misunderstood. Surely "from Irish..." would be understood by more readers?
 * Craigavon: I recently added a source for Creag Abhann for that article. Should Creag Abhann and the source thus be moved to the infobox?
 * Cheers. ~Asarlaí 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a great fan of "after" either. I meant it in answer to jnestorius' excellent point that (guessing) Bangor did not derrive from Beannchar but from some common ancestor of them both so "from" is no literally correct. In fact of that criticism, I'd simply say "Bangor ..." TBH. Mabuska, what think?
 * Mallow: I think you're right. Craigavon: yes. --RA (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For places like Mallow, instead of adding the derive tag just manually-write it in avoiding the repetitive Irish? Or create a specific tag for such places.
 * After Irish can be confusing. On Bangor, |PlaceNamesNI states it as deriving from Beannchar. A book i have also states it means 'peaked hill' not 'place of points', with PlaceName just stating Beann meaning 'point' or 'spike'. So its open to interpretation. Oddly enough the Irish for Bangor, Beannchar, is suppossedly derived from the Old Norse for horned bay, which researching could be something along the lines of Vágrhorn. However thats original research and can be discounted here, however the fact it may originally derive from Old Norse should be mentioned in the article somewhere (the article has a nice name section were it would fit in great). However for the purposes of this why don't we use:
 * Bangor (possibly ).
 * The exact translation can be discussed on the article page with all source variations looked at.
 * As Craigavon is derived from James Craig and not an older Irish name, yeah the Irish and the source would be placed in the infobox rather than the lede.
 * We've almost made it to the finish line.
 * Mabuska (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That all looks fine. When giving examples we should be as clear as we can (and probably use a placename whose translation isn't disputed). This is what I have in mind:

Examples:
 * For places in the Republic of Ireland:
 * Mallow (, from Magh nAla meaning "plain of the rocks") [1] ...


 * For places in Northern Ireland whose names are derived from Irish:
 * Dungannon [1] ...


 * For places in Northern Ireland whose names are derived from English, the other names should only appear in the infobox along with a source.
 * All that needs to be done now is to change the Irish derived placename tag so that it reads "from" rather than "after".
 * Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All sounds good, Superfopp and Mabuska. Changed it back to "from". --RA (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One last issue - what about English derived places that Logaimn.ie has given a translation for where nowhere else has? Especially as its a retrotranslation service that is making its way through the island with official remit only in the Republic of Ireland? That issue has been forgotten. Mabuska (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In those cases, if another source can't be found, I think we should write "likely derived from...". However, for Northern Ireland articles, doesn't the Irish derived placename tag sort this out anyway? If we use only that tag for Northern Ireland articles, we're simply saying what the name is derived from rather than saying "this is the official Irish name". ~Asarlaí 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we back up? I'm not clear why we should give an English gloss of the Irish name in the lede. This is not the practice AFAIK for articles about places in other countries, whether anglophone or otherwise. jnestorius(talk) 10:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would Dungannon (from Dún Geanainn) be more along the lines of what you prefer? Any book i've seen on Irish townlands and settlements that state the names origin always give a meaning even if it is a modern translation that may not exactly match the original. Any other derivations and possible meanings can be discussed in the article itself. Mabuska (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "I'm not clear why we should give an English gloss of the Irish name in the lede." To inform the reader?  Just a wild guess.  The purpose of a WP article is not to enforce WP bureaucracy or AFAIK to look the same as other WP articles, but to tell people interesting things.  The practice of giving an English meaning for an Irish place-name is long-standing.  If there is a significant number of people complaining that it doesn't add to the article, there may be grounds for stopping; if not, we must assume that people find it useful.  Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats the very reason for giving the English translation - as it adds to the article in allowing the reader to know what the word means or potentially means - any debatable names can be detailed in the article itself. Ignore_all_rules states if it stops us improving Wiki, ignore it! I personally think that if its sourced as being from those Irish words and with that meaning it informs the reader. Mabuska (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Scolaire and Mabuska. ~Asarlaí 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a nice to have and informative. Having it in the lead is more efficient presentation than adding a one line "etymology" section to every article. Maybe not aimed so much at an international readership but for readers from the island of Ireland I think it is revealing to know what those garbled noises actually mean. Even from an international perspective, I wouldn't mind it being standard for places names across the encyclopaedia. If we got all of Ireland done, which is the aim of using those templates, it would be nice IMHO if we could pass on our experience and get the ball moving with places names in Wales or Scotland, if those WikiProjects got behind it. --RA (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually thanks to PlaceNames and the sometimes differing translations of certain place names according to sources, the eptymology section could actually be more than just one sentence and an additional informative part of most articles. Though what about my question on Logaimn? It needs answered! Mabuska (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting there should be no gloss; I'm wondering whether it belongs in the lede. How much detail is in the initial gloss? If we say Kilmore is from cill mór "big church", do we leave it at that? The history section might describe the particular church; if there is a separate article about the church will this be wikilinked in the gloss? Some advantages of putting all the gloss in the body: first, everything is in one place, and can be as short or long as need be; second, it's consistent with non-Irish articles; third, it's clearcut; fourth, it handles the tricky cases. Some advantages of putting some gloss in the lede: first, it's what's mostly there at present; second, it seems to be what lots of Irish people expect. If we are to put a gloss in the lede, there should be some guide or suggestion about what to put there and what to defer to the body. I accept that detailed guidelines would be impractical, but at a minimum the guide should point out that thought must be given to the issue. jnestorius(talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the lede, I'd suggest just the bare few words, the literal translation (fully cited) e.g. "big church". Anything more, even an explanation as to what the cryptic "bug church" means, to be left for the the body.
 * Mabuska, they replied yesterday saying they'd passed my query on to the Place Names Branch who would "be in touch with you shortly". --RA (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Clear enough. What about places where the English is not derived from the Irish? For "Wexford", do we gloss Veisafjǫrðr, Loch Garman, both, or neither? jnestorius(talk) 14:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say both, as long as it's brief and referenced. Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not both if the English is a derivitive of another language? e.g.:
 * Wexford ...
 * And leave Yola and discussion of the etymology to the body. --RA (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no harm in that as it gives it origins and its official Irish version. Strangford already has its in Old Norse i believe, but as it has no official Irish name, it can be added into the infobox instead if it has one (Irish name that is). Mabuska (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * News back from the Place Names Branch (actually they got back to me very promtly yesterday, but I had missed the email).
 * "'The Irish forms of placenames within Northern Ireland on www.logainm.ie do not have any legal status. These forms were recommended for official use by the Placenames Commission in Ainmneacha Gaeilge na mBailte Poist (Dublin, 1969). This publication lists the recommended Irish versions of the names of the post offices in Ireland as a whole. These are the Irish forms used by OSNI in its map Éire Thuaidh/Ireland North, A cultural map and gazetteer of Irish place-names (Crown copyright 1988).'"
 * I'm not going to contradict this and say that the Irish forms of places names have legal status in NI (they don't), but would point to this submission by the UK government to the UN:
 * "'There is no national names authority in the United Kingdom. Instead, the geographical names as portrayed on hard-copy and digital products of the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain and the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland are recognized as being the authoritative geographical names of the United Kingdom'"
 * Use by the OSNI would thus appear to make these names "authoritative" (if not "legal" - if even the English names are "legal") in the same sense that Irish-language names were "authoritative" but not "legal" in the south prior to Official Languages Act 2003. --RA (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the fact they explicitly state "The Irish forms of placenames within Northern Ireland on www.logainm.ie do not have any legal status." says enough as authoritative doesn't equate to legality. However aside from that what does that mean for Northern Ireland settlement articles? To me it means Logaimn can be used to give an authoritative origin for places of an Irish origin where we can't find one elsewhere or we have conflicting spellings which is good. Yet what of places that aren't of Irish origin? If they don't have an organisation outside of Logaimn using an Irish form, say the GAA, should we impose one on them just because Logaimn states one? Waringstown is an example. Mabuska (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not legal status but it does mean (I believe) that we can take the names that appear on loganim.ie (and are marked as "validated") as being authoritative. For the Waringstown example, I'd say it means we can continue as we had planned. Baile an Bhairínigh does not appear in the lede but can appear in the infobox. Do you think it would be inappropriate? --RA (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you declare in the proposed wording of the standard the stuff of Logaimns non-legal status in regards to Northern Ireland buts its role with OSNI in providing authoritative versions, i think it would be sound, and we have the thing sorted. Mabuska (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this OK:

...

Generally speaking, contemporary names should reflect contemporary spelling. All place names given should be attributable to reliable sources. A website (www.loganainm.ie) developed by the the Placenames Branch of the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs in the Republic of Ireland gives the legal form of place names in the Republic of Ireland, marked on the site as "validated" on the website. In most instances, the Irish form of places names in Northern Ireland do not have legal status. Authoritative Irish forms of places names, as used by the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, exist and can be found at www.loganainm.ie, marked as "validated" on the website.
 * "In most cases" because can't a streets/etc. petition to have their Irish name recognised by the council? I presume a council can also give legal status to other places names so its likely there are some Irish forms with (some sort of) legal status? --RA (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The "validated"/"invalidated" is not a legal distinction. Legal Irish forms derive from Placenames Orders made under the Official Languages Act 2003. The most important ones are 519/2003 (counties and Provinces) and 59/2005 (cities and towns). There are others which mainly cover townlands, etc; few natural features (mountains, rivers, etc) are covered. There may be some places where 133/1975 is still in force. A list of orders made to date is here on the Department's website, and where relevant the Order is the appropriate thing to cite. (The Orders are in PDF format in the department website, so it's probably better to cite the HTML equivalent from the Irish Statute Book. Also, the 2008 draft Order on the Department site has not been passed. I've noticed some misspellings in it, derived from Logainm data; hopefully so have they.)
 * AFAIK the department will not make an Order until a name has been validated; however, the converse is not true. A "validated" Logainm name which has not (yet) been given legal status is still citable to a reliable reference, but we may want to distinguish them from legally-sanctioned names. Indeed, even a non-validated name is citable, considering there are plenty of English names on Logainm where not even a proposed/likely name is given; obviously we would need to caveat those. We should also get some Category:Irish toponymy articles up to scratch so we can cite them on this policy page. jnestorius(talk) 09:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think in terms of that website "validated" (as far as ROI names go) means that it appears on one of the relevent orders: see here. Would another email be in order?
 * I do agree that even when not "validated" it is a reliable (and authoritative) source. --RA (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Councils in Northern Ireland (and rest of UK) are allowed to make use of differnet languages on road-signs if desired but it has no legal status just as they don't have legal status in UK courts, a case in point being last week (or maybe it was this week) a bar-owner, Sean somebody, had his appeal dismissed on the courts refusal to accept his public house license application because it was written in Irish.
 * How about this wording, especially as Logaimn explicitly stated they do not have legal status in Northern Ireland:

...

Generally speaking, contemporary names should reflect contemporary spelling. All place names given should be attributable to reliable sources. If different sourced modern versions exist, i.e. Tulach Lios or Tulaigh Lis, a website (www.loganainm.ie) developed by the the Placenames Branch of the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs in the Republic of Ireland, and used by the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, can be used to provide a generally accepted spelling - in this case Tulaigh Lis. This site has official remit within the Republic of Ireland to produce legal Irish versions for future official status, however its jurisdiction does not include Northern Ireland where they have no official legal status. It is used though by the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland to produce authoritative versions, which can be used. Mabuska (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm grand with the gist of it though it's not the website that gives legality to the names, it just lists the legal ones. How about:
 * "'... This site lists official the English and Irish forms of place names within the Republic of Ireland. The Irish form names it lists for places within Northern Ireland do not have legal status. They are used though by the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland to produce authoritative Irish versions of places names in Northern Ireland.'"
 * --RA (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that wording. Mabuska (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting it all together
Will we add this so?

For articles on places on the island of Ireland, show the modern name in English, Irish and, if appropriate, Scots in the infobox if the article has one.

For places in the Republic of Ireland, other names should be shown in parentheses immediately after the common name in the lead. For places in Northern Ireland, only show non-English-language names in parentheses after the bolded name if the name in that language demonstrates the origin of the common name. Other names and etymologies can be described in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

The meaning of non-English place names should be given if known. All such meanings should be fully cited. For names that appear in the lead, provide the meaning in parenthesis immediately after the common name. Otherwise, provide the meaning in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).

Examples:
 * For places in the Republic of Ireland:
 * Mallow (, from Magh nAla meaning "plain of the rocks") [1] ...
 * Wexford ([1] ) [2] ...


 * For places in Northern Ireland whose names are not derived from English:
 * Dungannon [1] ...
 * Strangford [1] ...


 * For places in Northern Ireland whose names are derived from English, the other names should only appear in the infobox along with a source.

Generally speaking, contemporary names should reflect contemporary spelling. All place names given should be attributable to reliable sources. If different sourced modern versions exist, i.e. Tulach Lios or Tulaigh Lis, a website (www.loganainm.ie) developed by the the Placenames Branch of the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs in the Republic of Ireland, and used by the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland, can be used to provide a generally accepted spelling - in this case Tulaigh Lis. This site lists official the English and Irish forms of place names within the Republic of Ireland. The Irish form names it lists for places within Northern Ireland do not have legal status. They are used though by the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland to produce authoritative Irish versions of places names in Northern Ireland.

--RA (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. However on meanings if there are none for a place derived from Irish - can the tag be modified or a specific one created that you can add a parameter into to turn off the meaing: blahblahblah bit as you can't leave it blank at present. Mabuska (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added it and re-factored the page. --RA (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)