Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 6

IP hopping editor
I have encountered and IP hopping editor who makes edits to Donegal and Northern Ireland articles with little ambiguaty, no sources , POV and no regard for MOS or IMOS. Mind you I have found some absolute beauties in these articles - for another day perhaps. Here is some of thier IPs: And probably more. He has been reverted by myself and other editors on many of his posts. I would like to know how we can deal with this editor, and his ilk , as tracing through all his IPs is not fun .Murry1975 (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 93.107.66.176
 * 93.107.205.111
 * 109.78.242.104
 * 109.77.83.200
 * 109.78.234.185
 * 217.41.240.15 (sometimes)


 * Difference [], removing any mention of the state replacing with the island and adding the province of Ulster - IMOS states "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 " . The editor has also put a lot of info in Culture of Northern Ireland that I reverted after another editor pointed it out to them [] . Also there point seems to be set out here [] to replace all mentions of Ireland .Murry1975 (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Similar from 2007 [], thats 4 years of this!!Murry1975 (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The IP's may be Vodaphone open proxies, which are invariably used for Block evasion, by disruptive editors. See the Open proxies article for how to deal with them. Note Proxies are often blocked for five years. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Richard, not sure what to do, I will probably see how it goes hopefully they will be quite it seems to be a peak over the holiday period. The earliest one is ESAT, which became ESAT-BT Ireland and onto Vodaphone so it appears to be the same editor (if its a duck) ,I will keep an eye on it when I can. Thanks again. Murry1975 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL
Red King has given me a shout on changing Ireland on relevant articles. He stated "Geographical and historic features should stay as Ireland, there is no need for the political qualification." and reverted with "rv because it is a geographical feature not a political one" on populated island of Inishbofin and on others of "rv as structure is pre-1937 and River Boyne is a geographical feature not a political one" on Newgrange, Dowth aand Knowth. Now as I have spent a large part of my weekend trawling through edits where places (like Inishbofin) were incorrectly pipelinked - some by accident some from bias- I am asking what is defined as a place in IMOS, is there a cut-off point (1937 - like why? why not 1922 or 1949 or 1953 ?)Inishbofin IS a place people live there have addresses there. Stone Henge is listed as UK even if it predates any act of union and geographically Lake Michigan-Huron  is listed as POLITICAL USA and Canada not geographic North America. So I am looking here (again) for clarity. I have reverted Red Kings edit on Insihbofin as I said its a place and "settlement" as such qualifies it under: Now I just need guidance. A political one? I dont see it as such, other historic features list the state they are in. They are listed in "Category:World Heritage Sites in the Republic of Ireland" so how have I got this one wrong? Or are "political ones" any that seperate state from island in the eyes of some people?Murry1975 (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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


 * Ireland pipe-linked to Republic of Ireland should be used as far as i'm aware for locations that are situated within that state. A political qualification is often [insert] is [/insert] used for geographic and historical features and i see no reason for Red King to argue against that. Inishbofin is an island that is part of the Republic of Ireland and it should be stated (pipe-linked or not). Copeland Islands located within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland are stated as being such just like Tory Island is stated as being in the Republic of Ireland. Mountains are like islands - geographical locations/features however the Mourne Mountains, Sperrins, Hill of Tara, Croaghgorm articles etc. etc. all say what state they are in. I suggest Red King abides by the IMoS in regards to this issue. Mabuska (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should link to the state/country that they are in, just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. We don't state that mountains in England are in Great Britain because they were formed before the UK or England was established, we just state where they are. As far as I'm concerned your edits are correct, I can't comment on Red Kings motives. Heck the pre-1937 comments make no sense as those monuments we built thousands of years ago before there was anyplace called Ireland. Where they are today is all that is relevant here, and should be country/state like everything else, not landmass. Canterbury Tail   talk  03:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Location is not historical. Johnbod (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus disagrees with me, even though I find it very weird indeed to refer to the Boyne or Shannon as rivers, not in Ireland (island) but rather in Ireland (state). I didn't have any extraneous motive, political or otherwise. It just felt wrong to me. I have to admit, though, that "the Tagus is a river in Iberia" looks silly compared with "the Tagus is a river in Portugal". I concede.--Red King (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Red King its not about conceding, its about clarity and accuracy. You have to understand, as I believe you now do, that whatever way we look at it, as your example of the Tagus shows, land mass or geographical region/area is not the rigth way. IMOS is here for guidelines in relation to these things. I stress its not about winning over a point of difference or conceding the matter, we edit here for others, not ourselves or our views but for others to learn from what we imput, be it small or monumental the goal of our edits should always be to give the reader the best understanding of the subject in the article. I value your opposite view just as much as I value the views of the editors who have agreed with me. Murry1975 (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You have to be precise with the location of places, which should state their current geophysical location, for accuracy. The problem with Red Kings statements above are that there is no Geographical place as Iberia, which is the name of a Spanish airline. The river Tagus is not a river 'in' Portugal either, saying so would upset many Spaniards. The river Tagus (Tajo) is a river in the Iberian Peninsular, which flows through Portugal to the Atlantic Ocean. The source of the river being Frías de Albarracín, to the east of Madrid and west of Teruel, in the Province of Aragon, Spain. ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So what are you suggesting? The island of Inishbofin is a populated place yet a geophysical property at the same time as are most populated places. Rivers and mountains to be left island linked while man-made historical features are state linked? Where does that leave canals? I am aiming to get the most clear answer, the River Thames flows through England not the geophysical Great Britain. The Barguelonne flows through France , not geophysical Western Europe. It would seem odd to state that a river or mountain range solely in on state gets classed by its geographical region as most artilces of this type get classed by state. There are mountains and rivers that cross the border and in my opinion they should have both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the info box and lead and most definitely state somewhere Ireland or the island of Ireland in them. I want clarity not confusion in the articles. What is the best way to achieve this?Murry1975 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone looked at the Tagus example it details the geographical and political situation, but being a major river in the Iberian Peninusla i deserves mention. Like for Pyrenees. In all cases other than those that Red King has removed them - they all contain the political entity/entities the landmark is in. Though stating the geographical location along with the political makes sense for major landmarks, not minor ones like Inishbofin or the Copeland Islands in my opinion. Mabuska (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Irish clan names in Irish
A simple proposal that i think should be added to the IMoS, maybe the Orthography section, just for any editor who reads it so they know:

In articles that discuss medieval or ancient Irish clans or septs, many times the anglicised version of the name is given. Whilst that makes sense it can be misleading as not all anglicisations show the difference between some Irish clans/septs who share the same anglicisation or those that have a wide range of anglicisations, an example being: MacGuiness could refer to the Mag Aonghusa of County Down or the MacInnes who originate from Scotland and Campbell could refer to the Scottish clan or the Tyrone clan Mac Cathmhaoil. Mullan/Mallon is another which could derive from either Ó Maoláin or Ó Mealláin.

Whilst i already do this largely as common practice, i propose that it should in enshrined in the IMoS that when mentioning an Irish clan/sept that it should be given in Irish with the common English anglicisation given afterwards, i.e. Ó Maoláin (Mullan), Mac Giollagain (MacGilligan), Ó Coinne (O'Quinn) - just a few examples i used in Keenaght (barony).

In the Clogher (barony) article i listed several anglicisations such as: Mac Cathmhaoil (English: MacCawell, Campbell, MacCall), and Maolpadraig (English: Mulpatrick, Kilpatrick).

If the idea makes sense what style should be used? That used in the Keenaght article or the Clogher article, or a mixture? Mabuska (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No comments? Mabuska (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to think about it as if instead of Irish it was Hindi what would it look like? The main problem in that case would be where one referred to the name without the English form. This is done in 'were the leading sept of the Cenél Fearadhaigh' in Clogher (barony). In Hindi or Chinese I'd find it more difficult. As you say the problem sometimes is that there isn't a one-to-one mapping though so I'm not sure what to do exactly. Dmcq (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point on references without an English form and i understand the issue on that. The common style it appears in regards to the names of articles is to use the native spelling (which seems to be the academic way of it nowadays) of the name for example Finn McCool takes you to Fionn mac Cumhaill and Saint Crunathan takes you to Cruithnechán. Mabuska (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Map Name on Ireland article
The template for the map on the article doesnt allow pipelinking of Ireland . It had until 20 August read [[Ireland incorrectly, then it was changed to the Republic of Ireland pipelinked to the article it was on. Today attempts were made to try and correct this, which ended in a unlinked Ireland there, for the record by me. It was reverted I took it to the talk page and changed it, again it was reverted with a mention of discussion on WP:IECOLL, at which point I brought it here. A map with the state highlighted and the word Ireland , on an article about the state with the title Republic of Ireland I believe is unambigious. Comments, help and advice please. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clearly misleading as the term "Ireland" could refer to either the state or the land mass, it needs to say "Republic of Ireland". This is an Encyclopaedia the whole English speaking world uses not just those with a PhD in 20th Century Irish politics. Mt  king  (edits)  05:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The same argument could be made for any instance user Ireland is used for the state. Far from requiring a PhD in 20th Century Irish politics, that is in fact common practice: the state is commonly (as well as officially) called Ireland. If anything, knowing the supposed distinction between Republic of Ireland and Ireland require re-existing knowledge (the putative "PhD in 20th Century Irish politics."), Why would someone unaccustomed with the subject know that the Republc of Ireland and any other Ireland would not be the same thing?
 * In any case, could we keep discussion in one place? This is already being discussed on the Republic of Ireland talk page. If we are only discussing this instance, let's keep it there. -- RA (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Piping is a bad way to achieve precision for the readers
It says "use Ireland not Ireland or Republic of Ireland". Readers are highly unlikely to click on a piped link to learn what the familiar term "Ireland" means. If the distinction is important, it should be spelled out in full the first time, and subsequently, having established the precedent, rendered as "Ireland". Telling editors they can't write "Republic of Ireland" is a bit odd, isn't it? My concern is that almost no readers will get the point unless you do spell it out first time. Naturally, if there's doubt subsequently, it might be spelled out again. Tony  (talk)  14:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What says? If you are referring to the IMOS, it uses 'nowiki' syntax, so there should be no such difficulty as implied, RashersTierney (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rashers I raised the issue at MOS for linking because a lot of articles are being ambiguated by this project for removing over links. The editor above managed to show how on the Dublin article "capital of Ireland" totally ambigious, but so far he is the only reply.Murry1975 (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS its always "United States of America" in the first instance too? Common name versus Arb Com ruling really.Murry1975 (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Woah, this is way over my head. Let me do some guessing. Ireland can mean the island (including Belfast), and is also the common short name for Eire, yes? If this is the case, the default, unless we're being really fussy, is that Ireland refers to the nation. Is there an historical element that confounds this too? I see no ambiguity in US or the United States, so why would it be good to spell out the full United States of America, unless in a pretentious presidential speech? Please teach me the distinctions. It might also be good to disseminate them more widely among editors. And at the same time, let's take a look at how the various names are used in articles and how they might relate to wikilinking. We don't usually link the names of globally familiar English-speaking countries, since this is the English Wikipedia. Tony   (talk)  14:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ireland" is Eire or the Republic of Ireland's official name in the English language. The United States comparison isn't really a useful one as there aren't two United Stateses, whereas the country called Ireland is named after a far older geographical feature with which it isn't coterminous. JonC Talk 14:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brace yourself! RashersTierney (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WB Jonchapple, never knew you spoke Irish? The point being the US is a common name yet doent get spelled out, I know the reasons for disambiguating. Nice one the Rashers, never read that before.Murry1975 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS to Jon, Éire is both the name of the state and island just in a different language ;)Murry1975 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I'd thought all along. So why this linking thing? Ireland, I'd have thought, is as commonly known as the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia. We normally reserve linking for more useful items (Economy of Ireland, where relevant in a context). That way, we're likely to get more hits from readers. Why, then, does that odd section overleaf forbid the spelling out of Republic of Ireland and the plain linking of Ireland, unpiped (not that the link is normally advisable)? I'm confused. [And having stumbled on the Economy of Ireland article, I've got to raise the alarm: it urgently needs a revamp: old stats, other problems. Important topic.] Tony   (talk)  14:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 14:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ireland is as commonly know, but the island is also Ireland and as not to case confuion or marginalise anyone the compromise was made that the pipelinking fix is used. Can I ask you Tony would if you saw the Republic of Ireland without the pipelink would you know it was the state you commonly refer to as Ireland? Murry1975 (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ireland is the proper name for the state and should normally be used where possible, i.e. where there is little likelihood of confusion. Republic of Ireland is used as a disambiguation as the title of the article and is an officially sanctioned description of the state. In the context of just coming along to Wikipedia and trying to find an article about Ireland Wikipedia needs two articles so two different names for articles as the island is not the same as the state and both are highly notable. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess on the question of precision, we must ask ourselves: what is the Irish state called? In fact, it's called Ireland - both commonly and in law. This means that there are are two things called Ireland, so ambiguity is going to happen. Which Ireland we mean will depend on context.
 * In a similar way, we need to accept ambiguity when we say that Canberra is the capital of Australia. It is the capital of the state called Australia, for sure, but it is not the capital of the continent called Australia (which, like the island called Ireland, has no capital).
 * We could overcome that ambiguity by saying that Canberra is the capital of the Commonwealth of Australia - but we don't need to fret about it. Just as in the Ireland example, context tells us which Australia we mean. -- RA (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes its quite clear in some cases, like Ra's example better than mine, but these guidelines are here for awhile. I think we should rewrite some of them in relation to common sense and to keep in-line with other MOS forms. Gaining from the fact that Tony is an outsider and clearly unbiased maybe we should use help from outside IMOS and IECOLL. We seem to read to much into certain aspects of Ireland that others do not. Context, understanding and conveying of knowledge should be the point of articles and the information they display.Murry1975 (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No-one is without bias. Use of Eire, for example, indicates a particular tradition of vocabulary. That's not to say that that tradition is right or wrong but it should illustrates how no-one is without bias. -- RA (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and one thats usage I express my reservations at, RA ,it is well put on the article on the names of Ireland some see it one way .Murry1975 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "We don't usually link the names of globally familiar English-speaking countries, since this is the English Wikipedia". Tony, can you point everyone to where it was established that this is Wikipedia practice or policy, especially in relation to links that point to directly relevant and clearly related topics from the page at hand? Are you suggesting that Ireland (island or state) should virtually never be linked, even on the page about the state's capital city? I am fairly sure that there is no such rigid determination at the wording of wp:overlink, for example, or indeed anywhere else; nor is "globally familiar" anywhere defined.  N-HH   talk / edits  23:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * MOSLINK makes it amply clear that common country-names need a good reason to be linked. And the guideline also requires linking to be as specific as possible. Tony   (talk)  06:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with this? The piping is specific and people don't go around linking it unless it is relevant so what's the problem? Perhaps it would help if you pointed out where you felt there was a problem in an article and how you feel it should be changed. Dmcq (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear this. I wonder why the examples of the country-name are linked in the guideline. Tony   (talk)  07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're talking about in this manual rather than how it is used in articles? Because this manual is written by people arguing and wanting to make some point or other rather than some stylistic prettiness would be my guess. I'm surprised it doesn't contain bits in ALL CAPS :) If somebody wants to make it look a bit better then fine I say just I hadn't considered it part of the stuff read by readers. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Tony1, what part of MOSLINK are you referring to? Is it this section? I agree with Dmcq, the MOS here is not telling people to link willy-nilly. I agree too with Dmcq, that perhaps too it would help if you could point to examples where you feel there is a problem? -- RA (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A link to the reference to Ireland in the lead of the Dublin article seems a no-brainer to me (and perfectly "relevant", as suggested per the linking guideline at wp:overlink). Then piping that link to Republic of Ireland is obviously the correct thing to do in this context - by both logic and the guideline here - since "Ireland" here is being used with reference to the state, which sits at that article name. I'm also not sure what the problem is here on either count ..  N-HH   talk / edits  10:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem. The Dublin article, fine. But when we see "of Irish descent" in lots of bio articles of Americans, Australians, Canadians, British, it makes you wonder why. Tony  (talk)  10:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To begin with, Irish would be better IMO. If it is a bio of a person of Irish descent, it may be relevant. Agree, in general, that over-linking is annoying tho.
 * In general too, there is a lot of over-emphasis of (often distant) descent for many subjects. I often get the feeling that it is an attempt by some authors to "claim" a subject as one of their own. (See also the discussion about re: "Anglo-Irish" above.) -- RA (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The continued ignoring of WP:IRE-IRL, continues without clear resolution other than to steer clear of changing it but ignore what is said in it.Murry1975 (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you mean these edits:
 * I disagree with this one, as clearly (no matter how one understands the word), Cork is in Ireland. Oddly that one is marked as being "common sense", whereas this one, which does not have an edit summary, would strike me as being more arguably common sense.
 * The first edit is clearly against the MOS (i.e "... in elements such as info boxes), use Ireland not Ireland or Republic of Ireland ").
 * The second, in my opinion, is a reasonable as the state does not form a major component of the topic and it is not without reason in the context of air travel that the island of Ireland would be assumed to be a reference point. -- RA (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RA the IMOS says leads and infoboxs, the two edits affect these. When I orginally started the thread on linking projects page it was to find out why it is done and how it could be best done. There was no consensus, Tony brought it here to the specific part of MOS, the one which deals directly with this issue, the understanding I have taken is the status quo of IMOS should be used primarily. The "common sense" above is actually the opposite of the type "common sense" used in these edits. I understand your logic on the island being used for airtravel but as the island is also in the lead and pipelinked, as in the examples of WP:IRE-IRL. If you take an example of Stansted Airpot, it uses the state and London for travel info, not the island of Great Britian. The Irsih airports do use eirther Ireland- correctly pipelinked, or Northern Ireland. But this is only a side issue the main point of raising this is that IMOS is getting over looked on articles it deals with unless one of the main group of posters here does it. That isthe reason I raised this. If we raise our opinions too loudly this happens . I understand that Tony has delinking to do, I also understand the opinions generated by A di. M that this is not an easy area, but I feel there is a lack of understanding in what IMOS, and in specific WP:IRE-IRL  is trying to achieve. Articles relating to the PRC do the exact same thing .Murry1975 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are two examples by the same editor and  but contained the Ireland before yet afterwards were left Republic of Ireland in one and Ireland in the other. The editor has contributed to the thread on the Linking Projects talkpage not here but I have left messages on his talk page in relation to this part of IMOS before which they ignore. This is one of the things wrong, editors need to work together but the examples here show that if it is in a spiecific area it gets overlooked in some cases. The examples here show a poor understanding of not only IMOS but what he is trying to achieve.Murry1975 (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Old County Names
Quickie question. Looking at Cecil Day-Lewis it says he was born in the Queen's County (now pipelinked to County Laois). I'd've thought that using the COMMON name was the way to go on this one. This seems to be the norm for other articles. For example, the article Arthur Balfour says he was born in East Lothian rather than Haddingtonshire? --HighKing (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Good question. I think the name of the place at the time should be used. We state that someone born in pre-1921 Ireland is from Ireland not modern-day Northern Ireland or the Republic. I've seen the same for other articles where people are listed as being born in former states, though that applies to states and countries. In regards to sub-divisions, i'm not sure whether or not we should follow the same pattern - though i think it makes sense with a pipe-link. Mabuska (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with Mabuska. What is practice in other encyclopaediae? Mooretwin (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think historical context would be a good idea here and sub-divisions do follow the same principle. For example Ghandi was born in Porbandar, which is now Gujarat but his wikipedia page uses the former. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that Porbandar is still called the same thing since he was born in the city.
 * There doesn't appear to be any guidelines on how to handle subdivisions (esp. for places of birth/death). We have the Arthur Balfour article as an example of using the modern name.  There's no page for Queen's County (not even a redirect), so it's difficult to see how often it is used.  But Offaly used to be called King's County, Ireland which is redirected to County Offaly, and we can easily look up the What Links Here page.  Very few articles link to here.  We've also articles such as John Joly use the modern COMMON name.  It seems to me that there's no policy on the matter, and there's no stand-out reason to go around changing articles from one form to another.  --HighKing (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As you said there is no stand-out reason to go around changing articles from one form to another, however if someone is adding it or wants to change an instance we could set a guideline for them. I think pipe-linking Queen's County and King's County to Laois and Offaly would more than suffice as the units are essentially the same despite a change of name - and both articles on the modern county contain in the lede their former name so a reade3r being re-directed to it will know it's not an easter egg. Mabuska (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it's necessary for the vast majority of articles - just use the COMMON name. Some articles (e.g. Lord Lieutenant of King's County) refer to older terms as part of a title, and no problems with that.  If it's an important part of the article, put in something like (formerly known as Queen's County) or similar.  --HighKing (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the comparison to Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland vs. Ireland is totally right. For example, neither the Republic of Ireland nor Northern Ireland existed when Cecil Day-Lewis was born, so we cannot say that he was born in the Republic of Ireland. County Laois, however, did. It was just called something else.
 * That said, I think that historical context is important. I'd agree that in general places should be called what they were at the time (with the explanation that they are now called something else). On some articles, this seems to be followed. However, it doesn't seem to be the norm. To my mind, that's sloppiness — I'd prefer it the other way — but there is a reasonable argument that there is no need to confuse things by calling them by historical names, when the current name would be more familiar.
 * However, I don't think that this is a question for the Ireland MOS. I think it is a question for the general MOS. It is not a question that is specific to Ireland. What is the norm elsewhere in the encyclopedia? Do we call things by their current names? Or by their historical names? Is there a MOS entry for it? -- RA (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good thinking.
 * The MOS entry on Geographical Items says Places should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of their article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). Exceptions are made if there is a widely accepted historical English name appropriate to the given context. In cases where such a historical name is used, it should be followed by the modern name in round brackets (parentheses) on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article.
 * There's also been some discussion at the Talk page previously which touches on this very topic.
 * The MOS isn't clear on what is meant by "appropriate to the given context", but I guess that'll differ from article to article.
 * But I'd agree with the comments that in cases where no separate article exists for the historical name to simply use the COMMON or modern name. Like the non-usage of Haddingtonshire in the Balfour article.  And especially where the territory is simply renamed.  --HighKing (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This from the NCGN provides a better description of when to use the historical name. It states very simply: Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same
 * So for Cecil, what does the "reliable modern sources" say? (Probably Co. Leix :-)  --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think that using the current names for a period when they did not apply would be anachronistic. We should use the name that applied at that time. Would we talk about James Connolly arriving in Dublin at Connolly Station on his way back from Belfast?
 * I think that it is also fairly clear, from the examples given if not from the actual wording of the guideline, that this is what the [NCGN] intends. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All you've done is reposted the exact same passage as I posted above, except leave out the relevant bit about "substantial number of reliable modern sources"...
 * I don't think we're trying to change the existing MOS guidelines or create a special IMOS version. And I believe the current guidelines are clear.  Can we close this?  --HighKing (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant to post the same passage you referred to. My point is that if you read the examples given, as opposed to the admittedly somewhat equivocal guidance that precedes them, it seems pretty clear that use of the contemporary rather then the current names in a historic context is the general intention. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to use the contemporary name pipe-linked to the modern to give the thing its proper historical context. Or we should simple state the county and have the modern day name pipe-linked in brackets afterwards kinda like that extract HighKing provided suggests. Mabuska (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with CoharileContaeTHirnanOg. Use the contemporary. Mooretwin (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, please consider this horse flogged and dead. For clarification, the MOS gives clear guidance.  Put simply, use the contemporary name followed by the modern name in brackets.  For example, born in Queen's County (now called County Laois) or something fairly similar.  --HighKing (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Mooretwin (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Could this be written into IMOS incase an editor needs to look it up in the future? The example above would be good in my opinion.Murry1975 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be put into the IMOS. I prefer the less verbose Queen's County pipe-link though. Mabuska (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to explicitly put it into the IMOS TBH. It's not like we have a variant of the MOS ruling.  --HighKing (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From personal experience, with articles relating to Ireland I check here for the specific example or guideline. MOS is big, I still havent read all of it, and honestly doubt I will get through it all. If we had that example written in IMOS it would help insure this doesnt come up again or if it did would be resolved with less discussion.Murry1975 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My first reaction was that it would be good to have reference to it here too. Rather than duplicating or potentially forking the MOS tho (which would be bad) maybe we could include a section that briefly and simply points to other useful parts of the MOS (like the Geographic names part) and indicate why it is relevant to the IMOS? Like a summary of the larger MOS from an IMOS perspective. -- RA (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good RA.Murry1975 (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland place infoboxes and similar situations
For some, hopefully to be determined reason, when it comes to alternative language names we seem to be putting Ulster Scots names first followed by Irish names. Is there any reason for this? To me it flies in the face of common sense. On occasion the Irish name will be the original name of the place, the same can't be said of Ulster Scots to the best of my knowledge. The Irish language is far more common than Ulster Scots, and it also comes first alphabetically which is commonly used to sort things. So is there any compelling reason why Ulster Scots comes before Irish? 2 lines of K 303  11:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is becasue the argument used is for Scots (rather than Ulster Scots, specifically). In the UK infobox template, Scots comes higher up than Irish. A solution would be to re-arrange the position of Irish in the template or introduce a specific Ulster-Scots argument, which would come after Irish in the template, and make the appropriate changes across the affected articles.
 * In either case, I suggest the place to make this request is at the template talk page. -- RA (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable to get a consensus for a change to hundreds of Ireland related articles at the guideline that affects those articles first, before going to the template to ask for a technical change. Unless there's any compelling reason forthcoming within say the next seven days I'll take silence as consensus for it. 2 lines of K  303  09:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is a swap even required? What compelling reason is there to edit a template that is used on hundreds of pages simply to impose primacy of one language over another? Is it not more important that the names are mentioned regardless of order? Seems a bit hair-brained to add yet another parameter to the UK infobox, a parameter that will essentially be the same as the "Scots" parameter thus increasing redundancy for the sake of placing Irish above Scots in Northern Ireland articles. In my opinion Ulster-Scots is simply a dialect of Scots, if we are to include dialects then by all means we should change the Irish parameter to state "Ulster-Gaelic". Mabuska (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Ulster Scots should have primacy, and where does it say that we're not allowed to request changes to a template that affects 100s of article, since that statement goes completely against the ethos of Wikipedia. Mo ainm  ~Talk  11:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have to have arguments about things like this? My personal opinion is that unless there is a compelling reason the person who did the original work should be followed, as for BC/BCE and American/ British English etc. It gives a little biscuit to people who do something useful. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An alphabetised order (with the exception of English-language names) would seem more logical and neutral though. It would stave off haggling over primacy of place also (with the exception of English, obviously, which has primacy not least because this is the English-language Wikipedia). I'm between minds on Mabuska's point re: "Scots" vs. "Ulster Scots". That sounds like meat for a separate discussion though. -- RA (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no particular reason to give alphabetic order any primacy over what an author originally wrote. Certainly notan overriding reason. Alphabetic order is just some random order except it doesn't have the benefit of being random and so treating everything fairly. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hardly random. It is the standard way of arranging sequences of words. I hate to use a dictionary ordered in sequences of what entry was written first :-) It is also used to neutrally arrange any sequence of items that can be named (e.g. flags outside the European Parliament, graduands being called to collect their degrees, etc.). Alphabetical order is the usual way in which lists of all sorts are made on Wikipedia - not, whichever entry happened to be put in first. -- RA (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a dictionary though is it? It isn't even a decent sized list. I don't notice the other entries being in alphabetic order either. Dmcq (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Mo ainm - I never said it should have primacy and i never said we're not allowed to request changes, that is an assumption on your part and a convolution of my statement at that. Another issue with adding a new parameter thats just going to be the same as Scots is that someone is going to have go trawl through the articles to change each infobox where a Scots name is given. Why create the extra workload when all that matters is that the names are given? Out of curiousity i see no kick-up about the non-alphabetical order of the "Recognised regional languages" in the United Kingdom infobox. Mabuska (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a matter for that article, and I don't know how it's worked out. The problem with alphabetical there is you end up with Cornish first, which is such a fringe language it was actually declared extinct!! Only 300 speakers, if you go to a Star Trek convention you might be able to find more people that that speaking Klingon. Not that I've got anything against Cornish, I'm just trying to explain why alphabetical order isn't a good idea on that infobox. I don't care what order they appear in on that infobox, it's not germane to this discussion. But if you really want to go down the consistency road, Irish appears before Ulster Scots in the UK infobox ;) The same doesn't apply to the infobox problem we're dealing with. Irish is more widely spoken than Ulster Scots, it's first alphabetically and also some/many (I won't profess to be in possession on the actual rough percentage) English place names are derived from the Irish name in the first place. Are you aware of a single English place name that has been derived from the Ulster Scots name?


 * If you're objecting to the change, then you're in favour of maintaining the status quo which leaves Ulster Scots first. You can't eat your cake and have it too. You can't ask "why should Irish have primacy" then refuse to answer "why should Ulster Scots have primacy". One language will have primacy in the infobox either way, and a case has been made for Irish to be first. There's no "first in best dressed" rule on Wikipedia, if it can be changed and a case has been made for it to be changed then it's up to those opposing the change to explain the merits of the current situation. I'll happily change every single template field from Scots to Ulster Scots personally if the change goes ahead, so objections on the time have no merit. 2 lines of K  303  14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why must you and Mo ainm always resort to logical fallcy arguements? Can you not try to convince an editor with proper logic and reasoning without resorting to converse error to allege an editor must back B if they believe A. Such bad faith will surely win you support. You are requesting a change, so the onus is as much on you to provide as compelling a reason as possible for a change, not me or anyone else. You may feel any objections have no merit but you always feel that, however who says your reasonings have merit? If you want to convince an editor to agree with you, you have to answer their concerns or questions - you've failed to, instead using another logical fallcy, this time argumentum verbosium.


 * Now if you want me to agree with you (you wanted a consensus after all) then i would like you to address some points i made before with some new ones:


 * Are you saying that Ulster-Scots is an an actual language on par with Irish, English, Scots and Welsh?
 * If yes to the above then what firm evidence do you have that Ulster-Scots is an actual language and not just a dialect of Scots? Linguistic evidence would point to Ulster-Scots being a dialect of Scots and not a stand-alone language.
 * If it can't be reliably proven that Ulster-Scots is an actual language on its own and is simply a dialect of Scots, then should we not for the sake of consistency also state the dialect of Irish used in Northern Ireland rather than the parent tongue, i.e. Ulster Irish instead of Irish?
 * If it can't be proven that Ulster-Scots is an actual language on its own and is simply a dialect of Scots, and taking into account that Ulster Irish is classified as a dialect of Irish, and Hiberno-English and Mid-Ulster English are classified as dialects of English, and Ulster-Scots is classified as a dialect of Scots - then in the numbers game in terms of speakers (as RA basically said thats how its sorted, and you yourself have now made numbers a key arguement) what language has more speakers across the UK? Irish or Scots (obviously including dialects)?
 * Just a few questions you need to answer with meritable answers without using argumentum verbosium if you want me to back your proposal. Mabuska (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As Mabuska says, it all depends on whether we're classing Ulster-Scots as a seperate language to mainland Scots. Currently, its article is at Ulster Scots dialects, not Ulster Scots language, so it appears we're currently subscribing the view that it's a set of dialects, akin to Ulster Irish. JonC Talk 10:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me it has nothing to do with whether Ulster Scots or Ulster Irish are dialects, but simply about which is the more widely spoken in Northern Ireland. The Holyhead infobox doesn't bother with the Scots name, even though Scots is more widely spoken than Welsh in the UK as a whole, because it's concerned with a place in Wales. The heading of this section is "Northern Ireland place infoboxes and similar situations", so obviously it's concerned with NI, not the UK as a whole. As 2 lines pointed out in his first post, not only is Irish more widely spoken in NI, but many of the place names concerned are derived from Irish names. That's why, in my view, the Irish name should come first. This has nothing to do with "primacy", which has overtones (probably not intended) of "hegemony". Scolaire (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't quite understand what point you're trying to make with the Holyhead example... My argument was in response to One Night in Hackney, who's angling at changing "Scots" to "Ulster-Scots". I don't see any problem with the current template – anyone can click on either link to see which one's more widely-spoken. JonC Talk 15:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Hackney is "angling" to change anything to anything. He's simply saying that if Irish names are to go first (as I think they should for the reasons I gave above) then the template would need to be tweaked e.g. by adding Ulster Scots. It's a purely technical issue. My Holyhead example was a response to Mabuska's "in the numbers game in terms of speakers...what language has more speakers across the UK?" I was pointing out that infoboxes go by constituent country (I can't remember if you approve of that term or not), not in terms of "across the UK". Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From my reading of the above discussion, his preference would be for "Ulster-Scots" rather than just "Scots" in Northern Irish infoboxes, which pleads the question as to why not "Ulster Gaelic" too? They're both accepted by most sources as dialects of a language (including on Wikipedia), and only certain advocacy groups like the Ulster-Scots Language Society argue otherwise. And constituent country is fine... why wouldn't it be? JonC Talk 18:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why, I only know that some people object to it. As regards your main question, the mere fact that there exists an Ulster-Scots Language Society, but not an Ulster Gaelic Language Society, is as good a reason as any why "Ulster Scots" might be used, but not "Ulster Gaelic". Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, but as I stated above, it's considered a dialect (or collection of dialects) of Scots by mainstream linguists and indeed here on Wikipedia (our article is at Ulster Scots dialects) – just as Ulster Irish is a dialect of Irish. That there aren't revivalist Ulster Gaelic enthusiasts that consider their form of the language to be a seperate one doesn't change that. By creating a seperate Ulster-Scots field for the infobox, we're recognising the fringe view of Ulster-Scots as a seperate language. JonC Talk 19:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would see it as a tweak on purely technical grounds, not as "recognising" anything. But we must agree to differ. Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jon and Mabuska. If we change 'Scots' to 'Ulster Scots' (without changing 'Irish') we'd be implying that it's an independent language. If we make a parameter for Ulster Scots then we may as well make parameters for Ulster Irish along with Insular Scots, Northern Scots, Central Scots and Southern Scots. ~Asarlaí 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think that creating a field implies anything, but again, we'll have to agree to differ. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think quite a few reliable sources would be needed as to what is more commonly spoken in NI especially as many people speak Scots but dont realise it due to the similarity of the language to its cousin tongue English, something also not helped by ignorance and prejudice (by those who years ago called it 'bad' English). In regards to more places being derived from Irish than Scots - for the infobox that arguement means little i believe as the infobox per IMOS in regards to NI only provides the modern Irish name of a place. Its the lede that deals with any derives - and from personal experience from adding Irish placenames alongside Asarlai: in many cases they arent the same. Mabuska (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the Northern Ireland article, "In responses to the 2001 census in Northern Ireland 10% of the population claimed 'some knowledge of Irish', 4.7% to 'speak, read, write and understand' Irish", while "approximately 2% of the population claim to speak Ulster Scots". That information seems to be adequately sourced. I do, however, think that quite a few reliable sources would be needed for the contention that "many people speak Scots but dont realise it due to the similarity of the language to its cousin tongue English". Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When I was visiting Glasgow with my wife she asked me are they speaking Gaelic?, I told her no that's English ;-) Should I have said Scots? I've not had any problem understanding anything there or reading Burns' poetry either but they are rather different. Dmcq (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I suspect that the situation regarding Scots, and to what extent it is spoken (either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland), and to what extent people realize they are speaking it or not, is probably fairly complicated and quite possibly rapidly changing. I'd strongly encourage Mabuska to look for those reliable sources, because I think the results might be very interesting indeed. I'd be tempted to do it myself but the nearest useful library for such matters is a couple of thousand miles, or a generous couple of thousand kilometres, away.
 * Just on a side issue, Mabuska, when you say the Irish placenames that English placenames in the North are derived from often differ from the modern Irish version of the name, do you mean considerably different in many cases, as opposed to just the differences resulting from modernized spelling? Just curious. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Scolaire i wouldn't trust any census done over here in regards to what language people use as there are bound to be many on both sides who'd lie about it for political reasons. Also consider that 10 years ago (and even today) there is a greater awareness about the Irish language compared to the Scots language.
 * Trying to remember sources from next to a decade ago will be tough for me considering the amount of time has passed since i had my head fully stuck in Scots language affairs. Though there were several reports that detailed how Scots in Ulster was treated as bad/slang/improper English, especially in Victorian times, and efforts were made to stamp it out as such. Even today it is treated the same by many.
 * In regards to ComhairleContaeThirnanOg's question, it depends on the place. Most are different due to orthography changes over the years whilst others are different altogether including from evolution or truncation. The modern Irish name used in the infoboxes is based upon Logainm, an organsation tasked with the job of creating modern Irish versions of place names in Ireland (which are then used by the Irish government). Many times these are different from the names that the English form derived from, exemplified by the Place-Names of Northern Ireland project by Queens University, Belfast, which uses phonetics and historical sources to find the most likely deriviation of a place name.
 * Examples of difference in orthography spellings would include the barony of Tirkennedy. Logainm states (in the pages archive section) its modern orthographic form as Tír Cheannada whereas it states it being derived ultimately from Tír Cennfota.
 * Examples of truncation would include Maghera, which Logainm gives as Machaire Rátha, meaning "plain of the fort", however it ultimately derives in all actuality from Machaire Ráth Lúraigh (plain of St. Lurach's fort).
 * Examples of completely different include Upperlands, which Logainm gives the modern as Áth an Phortáin, yet ultimately most likely derives (according to the Place-Names NI Project) from Áth an Phort Leathain. Mabuska (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to trust a census - it's up to you whether you do or not. But the sources satisfy WP:V and you haven't come up with any sources, reliable or otherwise, that say the opposite.
 * As regards derivation, the point 2 lines and myself were making is not that the English name is derived from the modern Gaelic name, but that it's derived from the Gaelic name. In many cases the modern Gaelic name is the same; in some it's not. Either way the name is derived from the Gaelic. I presume you are not aware of any place names that are derived from Scots, or you would have said so. Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire this discussion is now pointless as there is no consensus for Hackneys proposal, and it now seems to revolve around points i've made that you wish to contest. This discussion now serves no real purpose other than wind-bagging, but if you wish i'll refute you anyways. All examples by the way provided by the Place-Names of Northern Ireland project and the Ulster Place Names project.

I hope your not saying that all placenames are derived from Gaelic, for if you are then you've shown how little you know on the topic. Whilst most obviously derive from Gaelic, i suppose Newbridge, Newtonabbey, Monkstown, Jordanstown, Grey Abbey, Newbuildings, Stewartstown, Staffordstown, Coalisland, Strangford, Taylorstown, Gracehill, Whiteabbey, Castledawson, Cookstown, and Randalstown etc. etc. all derive from Gaelic as well? And not just settlements as many townlands like Kirkistown, Bogtown, Blakes Lower, Springvale, Biggerstown, Hightown, the countless Grange's are also purely non-Gaelic in origin though many share there name with a settlement such as Randalstown and Cookstown.

Just to point out you should be highly suspicious of the real origin of many townlands starting with "Bally" especially since the highest concentration of "Bally" prefixies are in Norman areas of Ireland. For example i suppose the following placenames of Gaelic origin were actually originally Gaelic placenames: Ballyhalbert (Talbotston), Ballyfrench (Frenes's town), Ballyfrenis (Frenestoun), Ballygraffan (Graffan's town), Ballyhemlin (Hemlinton), Ballywalter (Walterstown), Ballyatwood (Aquart's town), Ballycastle (Castletoun), Ballyferis (Prerestoun), Ballyhay (Hayton) - all originally Norman placenames and those examples are only in the Ards Peninsula never mind the rest of Norman Ulster which at one point stretched the whole way to Inishowen in County Donegal. Let's not delve into how many places that we can't tell were originally Norman places but contain Gaelicised Norman surnames or a mixture of Irish and English, we could be here all day and night.

In regards to your logical fallacy presumption - Brae meaning "hill/hillside" is a common Scots word in several placenames in Northern Ireland (usually mixed with another language) i.e. Dolly's Brae, Drumenagh Brae, Braemar, Braetown, Greenbrae, Brae, Sandy Braes. Another common Scots word is burn meaning "stream" i.e. Pennyburn, Millburn, Burnside, Cunningburn, and Mistyburn. Knowe meaning "little round hill" is another Scots word used in place names i.e. Clatteryknowes and Sandyknowes. Kirk which is Scots for "church" is used in Kirktown and Kirkhill.

Also if you paid any attention to my point on the problem of Scots, you'd realise it isn't easy to distinguish whether a placename is ultimately from English or Scottish or a mixture, especially when you consider how many words in both languages are very similar (both languages derive from Old English so any wonder) and spellings varied depending on pronounciation over the centuries. Add in the fact standardised English spellings only came into being just over a century ago, meaning the possible distinguishing factor has been lost, examples such as Randalstown for all intents and purposes could ultimately derive from English or Scots, especially seeing as Randal MacDonnell was Scottish.

Now if you wish to retort or discuss this matter further and recieve more enlightenment on the chequered and not so black-and-white history of Irish place names i suggest you take it to my talk page as it serves no real purpose here anymore. Mabuska (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, that's fine. Thank you for the very interesting essay. I agree that Hackney seems to have abandoned the project. Scolaire (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no he hasn't
I was just waiting to see if people were going to come up with anything interesting. There are two essentially unrelated issues here: So as the arguments against Irish coming first appear to have descended into technical reasons, that would suggest to me there's consensus for Irish to come first. So all that remains is to thrash out how this is going to happen. 2 lines of K 303  13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Which language should come first in the infobox
 * 2) How any change would be implemented


 * You said you would "change every single template field from Scots to Ulster Scots personally." I'm happy for you to do that. Scolaire (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that. I meant if the field was going to stay as "Scots" or we were going to change it to "Ulster Scots". 2 lines of K  303  11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We must be reading different discussions, then. I see no consensus for the template being changed to make Irish appear first. — JonC ॐ 12:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, just reading an article and surprised to see the Scots version of the name first in the info box, the Irish version is the precursor of the English term in what I was reading and it seems very strange to have the scots version first. 86.45.12.27 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlingford Lough
Seeking advice on this Wikipedia page. In an attempt to increase accuracy and understand of this page, an edit suggestion has been made to include Northern Ireland in the location field of the infobox. This is the only NI related page using this lake template that does not include Northern Ireland in the field. Objections have included "Northern Ireland is not a country" ans the edit is POV. Please can editors advise? DR suggested that NI would be a helpful edit. An RFc is open for this but has reached a deadlock with ridiculous pov objections.this page has suffered years of edit warring and the suggested change would return the page to its original view pre edit wars.Hackneyhound (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have forum shopped now quiet a bit on this topic, all with no consensus for the change you wish to make, I'm curious have you ever edited under a different name? Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification, one editor at DR said NI would be helpful incorrectly basing their judgement on WP:IRE-IRL, . Murry1975 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mo, 1. This is my first venture onto wiki, and 2, Murry directed me here.
 * Murry who are you to judge on whether a user has interpreted the IMOS incorrectly? Seriously? I would take value from the opinion of a non involved admin over your POV. Please stop stalking me. Please read WP:CIV.Hackneyhound (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IRE-IRL deals with the use of Ireland not Northern Ireland. BTW he wasnt admin, just an editor. Also its not point of view. Again I am not stalking you this is on my watchlist, I have a lot of things on it. Have you not read WP:CIVIL yet? You have just double misrepresented above, I will assume good faith on the last one but the saying the DR suggested NI would be helpful when only one editor did and there was no consensus from the DR is definite misrepresentation which is covered in WP:CIVIL, as you have been asked to read this and claim to have you know this already. Murry1975 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, a border dispute :) Isn't Ireland mentioned enough times at WP:LAME already? Let's just leave that talk page to slog it out, the notice about it here is good enough and people can go there to discuss it. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationality of Northern Irish people
Much POV pushing goes on in this area with claims and counter claims that people from Northern Ireland are British or Irish or both. I suggest the following; if there is no evidence in the form of quality references that a person describes themselves as British, Irish or anything else for that matter, then by default, and for biographical articles, they should be stated as being "Northern Irish" in the lead paragraph. This should also apply to the mentioning in non biographical articles of people from Northern Ireland. This has possibly already been agreed. If this is so, there a number of editors disregarding it. Van Speijk (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What about sources stating either Irish or British, even if they themselves have not stated such? And we must remember sporting nationality is solely based on the country they have represented. And do we pipeling British to UK or Irish to Republic of Ireland then? As pipelinking Irish to Irish people is done as well, for instance Darron Gibson is Irish, most definitely, but where do we pipe to? Some editor had Irish piped to Northern Irish, and this would be wrong in that instance. Murry1975 (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about just saying they were born in Northern Ireland and only doing anything else if they specifically asserted an identity? For sport one can say they played for whoever. All nice and straightforwardly factual. In references from elsewhere one needn't put in any nationality unless it is very relevant and then the person should have asserted it or they should be playing for a team or whatever. In fact for Darron Gibson I'd be perfectly happy for the Irish to be removed from the first line and just say who he played for. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, identity in Northern Ireland is more complex than that. While, "Northern Irish" may be shared by the two communities to a larger extent that "Irish" or "British", it is no less a statement of identity. And it is also by no means universally accepted. Indeed, "Northern Irish" can raise feeling (sometimes very strongly felt) that it is a manufactured identity. It shouldn't be seen as "neutral" or as not having baggage of its own. Consequently, if we are avoiding "Irish" or "British" (I agree with this) then we should avoid "Northern Irish" for the same reason.
 * I agree with Dmcq, the default should be simply "from Northern Ireland", unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. And care should be taken to not to make one's "sporting nationality" appear as a statement of nationality (e.g. "... is an Irish footballer" &rarr; "... plays for the Republic of Ireland").
 * Like many things to do with Northern Ireland, it's best to defly avoid bald statements (no matter how straight-forwared they may appear at surface level) and instead make more mundane (but more sure footed) statements of genuine fact. -- RA (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Van Speijk suggests a default of Northern Irish, if no source could be found, this would fit better than the from Northern Ireland. I have read bios, American ones that dont mention either America or American in the lead or the article in some case, just city and state, and I in my opinion they leave too much out. Wiki is meant to be informitive to all, those that know a little and those who know a lot. The rest of them where their are sources they should be used. The sports nationality should be used as it is in sports articles. If we were to start changing bios we would have to make sure we do it with inclusiveness of the relevant wiki projects or thier guidelines. Murry1975 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read that Northern Irish v. from Northern Ireland point before, I just cant figure out where. If I remember I will look up that and find out what the outcome was. It was on an article, old age and my memory!! Murry1975 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * From Northern Ireland seems like the correct NPOV solution to me. Bjmullan (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, From Northern Ireland, is the only neutral solution to me. Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So why should Northern Ireland be treated differently? We don't say "from England" or from "Australia" or whatever. What's your probelm with "Northern Irish"? You really do need to read up on precisely what NPOV means - here's a primer; it means giving both sides of an argument equal coverage, and it has nothing to do with facts that some people have a problem with. Van Speijk (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't have international agreements about anything like this. Dmcq (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is someone from Buncrana or Carndonagh Northern Irish? Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if they were born in Northern Ireland. Van Speijk (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They are born in some of the most Northern points of Ireland. Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, Just put Northern Irish. It's the most accurate and stops any misleading POV being included. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, "Northern Irish" is misleading POV depending on which articles it is being added to. 2 lines of K  303  10:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It should only be used if a source could not be found to show Irish or British as a nationality. Darron Gibson, James McClean, Martin McGuinness, and the such who are Irish and have shown thier belief that they are Irish would be, well Irish. Where as source can be found is fine, but I dont think just saying from Northern Ireland is a great benefit, the 3 mentioned (and many more) are from NI yet Irish. I undersatnd that its only the third most common choice in NI and this may be a problem for some. NI is an mix of people with different national views, and "labeling" them one or another may not be best but from Northern Ireland instead of Northern Irish is not something I am convinced of. Murry1975 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why this burning desire to label people? The Good Friday Agreement says in effect people can choose something different every second day or two at the same time or whatever they like. Can't you be happy with a little grey? 'From Northern Ireland' is perfectly okay and there's no way they can choose to be born in two different places at the same time. Shades of 'are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist' is what I think about all this. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern with a "grey area" is that POV pushers would have the opportunity to either remove the nationalities sourced and just leave from, or at a later time, not only the POV pushers but good faith editors, could insert the incorrect nationality. Leaving it out, could be a way forward if we dont know, but if it is sourced it should be added. If we use a default of Northern Irish, I am begining to see would be OR, and lack sources, as none of the three would have been ref'ed. If we use default from NI we would basically leave a grey area, as you put it, but leave a way for POV pushers in general. Murry1975 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be impossible to describe Wolverhampton-born loyalist Billy Wright as being from Northern Ireland, yet Northern Irish loyalist or Ulster loyalist is accurate. Not all people who are associated with Northern Ireland were born there such as Wright and Michael Stone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1998 Agreement affirmed "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose". "Northern Irish" is not a nationality and many people would not wish to be labelled in that way; nor should a single term such as "from Northern Ireland" be foisted on people who have the right to describe themselves otherwise. A reasonable amount of common sense can be applied here. Even if there is no specific source for it, it is sensible to assume that, for example, most Sinn Féin politicians would choose to describe themselves as Irish, and should be so described here; equally sensible to assume that most DUP politicians would not opt for that as their nationality. Editors should proceed on a case-by-case basis: "from Northern Ireland" may be useful in cases where there is no reason to opt for British or Irish. Brocach (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Brocach, maybe you phrased that wrong ""Northern Irish" is not a nationality", for some it is and is regarded as a most definite sporting nationality in this encyclopaedia, so could you expand on what you meant by this. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Northern Irish is not a nationality? As far as I know it's as much a nationality as English, Scottish or Welsh. Van Speijk (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Murry1975, your reference to a 2001 source is not to nationality but to self-identification of "the way you think of yourself". Van Speijk, "as far as you know" is not far enough for the purposes of an encyclopaedia. "Northern Irish" is (still) not a nationality. Brocach (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what's your take on English, Scottish and Welsh? Van Speijk (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this page is to discuss WP:IMOS topics, not to explore my thinking. Take your new theme to the relevant talk pages please... Brocach (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A predictable response, dodging a pertinent issue. It's relevant for me to ask you in this argument for your views on a comparison between Northern Irish and, say, Welsh, nationality. Your avoiding the question speaks volumes. Van Speijk (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Predict away, and interpret away; I am here to talk about WP:IMOS, not for an 'argument' about Welsh nationality. Brocach (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Brocach if here is not to explore your thinking dont type it in. "Northern Irish" is a valid nationality, the survey was how they think about themselves, some identified as Northern Irish, others British others Irish, yet you are saying they arent identifying as Northern Irish nationality which as it isnt specifically mentioned. So what nationality would you say Michael O'Neill is? His bio says Northern Irish, the Irish Independent, the biggest selling Irish newspaper I think, says Northern Irish "The Northern Irishman was overcome with pride". Of course you could claim this is a generic term for someone from Northern Ireland, so I could call you Northern Irish then? Murry1975 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry - biased phrasiology in IMOS must go
The existing version:

To avoid constant renaming of articles (and more), keep a neutral point of view, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute, a compromise solution was proposed and accepted regarding the Derry/Londonderry name dispute.

Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles, except when referring to the GAA county of Derry. Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the organisation; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry.

The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate.

Proposed version:

There is a Derry/Londonderry name dispute, and a compromise solution was proposed here.

The arguments for the following solutions were; avoid constant renaming of articles, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and to avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute.

Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles, except when referring to the GAA county of Derry. Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the organisation; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry.

The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate.

Reasoning:

The proposed version uses less commanding language regarding the compromise (and loose language too), and removes the direct insinuation that Londonderry represents a 'POV' (whether the equal of Derry or not). Compromise aside, Londonderry simply cannot be a WP:POV, as it's sovereign. So the compromise cannot represent "no point of view", as IMOS claims.

I do realise that attempting more than one thing at once guarantees no change at all in bias-protected areas like this, but what the heck. Why can certain people fiddle around with it from time to time and not others? It's a UK issue - it shouldn't even be in IMOS (which supposedly represents two countries somehow - just because they are on the same island).

PS. I do not appreciate all my changes being edit-warred away over the denial of my NPOV point - you made no attempt to re-introduce it to the list Brochach, you just reverted the lot. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It seemed to me that you hadn't read the long discussion that led to the present consensus on Derry/Londonderry nomenclature. Your change was thus unjustified. The substance of the change you are proposing is the deletion of the objective to "keep a neutral point of view" and the deletion of the word "was agreed". In fact, the objective of keeping an NPOV was clearly central to the debate, and the compromise reached has by and large been accepted, though like any compromise it fails to please all of the people all of the time. You use the word "sovereign" very oddly: can you explain in what sense the word, or the city or county if that's what you mean, is "sovereign"? Brocach (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is what you wrote in the edit note in your second revert of my text above: Last revert (ie of my attempt to reason with you) is based on a misreading; nothing here suggests that Londonderry is any more POV than Derry; compromise is use both.


 * Brochach, Derry and Londonderry ARE NOT equal forms of 'POV'. Londonderry IS the sovereign name of the city. Northern Ireland IS British.


 * This simple fact that Northern Ireland is British has determinedly been made into a 'POV' on Wikipedia, which Irish nationalists insist must be "evenly weighted" against their own Irish Nationalist 'POV' for "balance". It's utter bullshit. We shouldn't even be having this discussion in here - NI is in the UK (and the island/state definition of 'Ireland' has been deliberately blurred across the encyclopedia - not least in the hugely-political 'island' article, and everywhere else besides).


 * There shouldn't actually need to be 'compromises' here - a proper guideline on sovereignty would sort this biased nonsense out. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Promise not to call me a fool but I again have to repeat a question since you haven't answered: what on earth is a "sovereign name" for a city? I genuinely have no idea what that means. Brocach (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That really stretches AGF. The UK is a sovereign state. Derry is in the UK. Londonderry is the British name. What is there not to understand here? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The first two paragraphs of the proposed version are wholly inappropriate for a style guide. The second one appears to have downgraded the actual consensus to "argumenents in favour of Derry" or something similar. 2 lines of K  303  22:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just don't know how you can say that. MOS should be direct and concise. The current one that you prefer is indirect, over familiar and leading. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is to be changed then first of all a good replacement or amendment needs to be thought up and debated a bit and then an RfC done. Just saying British isn't going to cut it when the majority of the city itself think otherwise and most of the references say Derry, anyway only a little more than a third of people in Northern Ireland think of themselves primarily as British as opposed to Northern Irish or Irish. I would support a change so articles where the chief sources say Londonderry should say Londonderry but the name of the article on the city should definitely be Derry according to Wikipedia policies. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Northern Ireland is British, Londonderry is British, the primary sources are British. Your "anyway" line says everything anyone needs to about your whole comment - you are claiming that (further from Derry) Northern Ireland is no longer British enough. Whether that is true or not (and I would suggest that Oirland is not getting the defectors - NI as a country is), Northern Ireland still remains British. You cannot equally weight nationalist sources with sovereign ones. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources in Wikipedia are graded only on reliability, not Britishness. The majority of references in WP:Reliable sources say Derry. See WP:Article titles for the Wikipedia policy on article titles.Dmcq (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You also have to follow Weight, redflag, Point and NPOV too - Wikipedia is not supposed to be a brutal source-finding numbers contest. The sheer exploitation that comes from isolating Verifiability in this area in particular is why there needs to be a specific sovereign guideline. Many people call Londonderry 'Londonderry' and it's simply the sovereign name. You will find that 99% of non-silly Wikipedia articles label in the most 'official' (comprehensive, academic, encyclopedic, adult basically) way, mainly because they have no reason not to. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Matt you keep using the word sovereign as it is some sort of magic trump card. Perhaps you could explain why you think this is the case? Bjmullan (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can see it as a "magic trump card" if you like, but the UK is a Sovereign State, and Londonderry is the legal name for the city. Despite various attempts by Sin Fein et al, no one has managed to change that. It's also is widely-used too, whatever the majority in the area might say (and using Ireland for sources isn't weighted, as it has never given up its claim on Northern Ireland). Matt Lewis (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bjmullan, sovereign is a noun which means authority or of the authority, he must mean this. Murry1975 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Derry City (ie your link) is the name of a council district, Murray1975 - it's not describing Londonderry the city. There are places all over the UK that follow similar naming patterns, and Wikipedia has separate articles for those jurisdictions.


 * Why do you think you get articles like this (from 2010)?:


 * "A controversial plan to change Londonderry's name was thrown into chaos last night when three separate motions were voted down at Derry City Council.


 * Unionists voted alongside the SDLP to knock back a Sinn Fein proposal to go ahead with attempts to remove the 'London' prefix from the city's name.


 * It demonstrates perfectly that Derry City Council and the City of Londonderry are two different things.


 * The reason for daily newspaper articles like this one (from today) is a sovereign legality that has never changed. You Don't Like It, but it's simply true. By the way, the Londonderry/Derry Naming Dispute article seems to be rather biased to me in terms of 'media use (citation needed - ahem)'. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To argue against the straightforward policy you need to do an RfC and get a consensus that something else is better for the encyclopaedia. By the way it seems odd to argue here for the official government name rather than the usual name and yet argue that Northern Ireland is a country rather than a province. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Province' is not a legal name, so in that instance 'country' does win per COMMONUSE (and critically UK government use too). It's not "odd" at all. I'm not playing games here - quite the contrary. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Province is the standard international legal description of Northern Ireland as requested by the British government and enshrined in ISO 3166-2:GB. WP:COMMONNAME applies to the names of topics, it does not say that 'county' must be used in the lead of the article, and in fact the article describes the controversy just like it should. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Framing it as you have done, that is just a lie. 'Province' is not 'legal' and never was - just first-used and then 'allowable', and has always been described as thus. Be careful how you mislead people Dmcq. ISO discounts "country" because it defines the term for it's own purposes - as a sovereign state. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It says England, Scotland and Wales are countries and Northern Ireland is a province. There is no framing or misquoting or lying. Get your facts right. Dmcq (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have to use legal so-called "sovereign" names, that's enshrined in policy. Perhaps you could explain why in the last few days the same newspaper says Derry here and here, to name but two? 2 lines of K  303  11:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia doesn't have to use legal so-called "sovereign" names, that's enshrined in policy." I wouldn't say "enshrined", but it will have to have a guideline on 'sovereignty' though, becuse Irish nationalists have bent the encyclopedia all over the place for years. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, your two links: the first uses the City of Derry district (and the terms Derry man) and Londonderry (the city) in the same article! The second uses just the district. The source I used (from the same paper) just used Londonderry the actual city. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll find WP:AT is indeed policy and does indeed say "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". More fact checking, less spouting shit please. 2 lines of K  303  12:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about you stop making it your life's aim to abuse Wikipedia? This is not any "subject" - the UK is a sovereign state constantly under nationalistic pressures in these areas. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Se let me get this clear, what we are now saying is that there are 3 areas: Is that correct? Fmph (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Londonderry - with is a the plantation city - is that just the part inside the walls?
 * 2) Derry City - which is the modern city where everyone lives - presumably it includes Londonderry as well?
 * 3) The county - which also includes both cities?
 * Pretty much. Derry City is a disctrict area that includes areas outside of Londonderry (and these district areas have their own articles on Wikipedia - see below), it's not the legal name for the city. It's not uncommon anywhere where names collide. Please see my quoted sources.


 * From the Wikipedia article:


 * Derry City Council is a district council in County Londonderry in Northern Ireland. The Council is is responsible for the city of Derry and the immediate environ, providing services to an estimated population of 109,800 (2010), making it the third largest district council in Northern Ireland by population.


 * That article is fine - it's the Derry article that needs to change - ie become Londonderry (also known as Derry). Matt Lewis (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Derry article needs nothing, you just want it to change. This has been done to death and in my opinion the current solution works really well so I for one strongly oppose any change. Bjmullan (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Compromises sometimes just happen, but their temporary nature must be understood. It's not about fighting battles that last forever: the correct way has to be found. And it's actually sitting there to be taken - it just simply upsets Irish nationalists. But so what? Nationalism is by-definition a dream, Sovereignty is simply a reality. The is a British Northern Ireland issue, not an Irish one. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The correct name is Londonderry, which is what it has been ever since King James I changed the name in 1613. (92.10.140.241 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC))
 * No one is disputing the official name is Londonderry. The question is what should the article be called under Wikipedia's policies. The consensus has been that WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable part of WP:Article titles. Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But was WP:Weight applied? Applying WP:Weight would dictate Londonderry. COMMONAME simply doesn't outweigh wp:Weight, and is on the lower-rung of policy for good reason: most if not all other policy considerations must come before it. For a start - regarding Weight - how can you include Irish sources when they still lay a claim on Northern Ireland? And surely the UK sources (esp the government ones) are simply more important than the amount of colloquial ones in use? Were all the 'Derry' sources compiled actually referring to the city or the City of Derry district? One Night in Hackney (called 'K' whatever) messed up on that one just a few comments above - and it's easily done if you're not being careful. Was the political sensitivity taken into account at all - ie how various Irish nationalist groups keep trying to get it changed but are not able to? (ie that keeping Londonderry is so important to the UK?). When the 'politics' is like that, isn't 'official' ALWAYS the safest option? It's why I always say "sovereign first", esp when making choice like here just can't be avoided. I'll never be convinced that people really went digging for Londonderry sources either: there's too much of the old cabal around, who have always made sure that the article was called Derry no matter what. Sorry, but this is Wikipedia/UK-Ireland. Any neutral reading my 5 or 6 points above would surely see that it's got to be 'Londonderry'.. (also called Derry) - and not the other way around. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't mess up at all. You might want to read the sources in the Derry article, and see who they say use Derry for the common name. Like I said before, more fact checking and less shit spouting. 2 lines of K  303  23:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't know the difference between the city and the district, even when your sources use Londonderry as well as Derry. You just see what you want to see, and it's Ireland uber alles with you. As I've said above - jumping to COMMONNAME and avoiding all other policy is a massive abuse of NPOV - and of course your 'Derry' sources will be full of (City of) Derry's - it's bound to happen with the two definitions in existence. Like with "British Isles", sometimes you just don't know exactly which definition people mean. The city is NOT the district (or the county for that matter). But with you people these kind of sources always mean exactly what you want them to mean. And anyway, even the genuine Derry sources (and there is a fair number out there I'm sure) can never be evenly Weighted with the 'official' sources anyway, as I keep saying. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Go and lie down in a darkened room, Matt Lewis. This issue has been done to death, the city is and will remain known primarily as Derry: WP articles invariably refer also to "Londonderry", the lesser-used term for which you have invented the absurd concept of "sovereign name" - I challenge you to find a single other relevant usage of "sovereign name". If (when) you can't, give up. Brocach (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The policies have been applied correctly. As it says in the policy
 * Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)
 * Caffeine (not 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)
 * Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)
 * Heroin (not Diacetylmorphine)
 * Rhode Island (not State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations)
 * United Kingdom (not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
 * .... Dmcq (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom (not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
 * .... Dmcq (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You either haven't read a single word I've written, or you're a slimeball, or you're troll. Either way, you'll scroll all this away to fight another day. As year after year after year you always do. You sad, sad, sad bunch of people. You major minor scoop of decadently committed people. You think I need a source to neolise the word "sovereign"? To conflate a little meaning to try and save a little space? To try and get an clear and obvious point across? There is simply no way in with you people - you would drive anyone to farce. Though in reality you all simply drive everyone away. These Troubled areas are like a Drive Out where the same C movie runs over forever. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit break (Derry/Londonderry ... )
If anyone is driving people away from WP it is people like you who do not AGF, who use WP as a soapbox and also attack other editors. A couple of days ago I suggested that one of your rants should be removed as per WP:SOAP, today I suggest the above is removed as per WP:NPA. Your current attitude will get you absolutely nowhere here. Bjmullan (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except blocked, with any luck. 2 lines of K  303  07:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This has descended into plain old trolling. Best ignored. -- Domer48 'fenian'  11:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly - nobody should put an "Edit break" before someone else's (ie my) reply - it's bad manners. It's pretty simple - put it before your own comment, and compose it accordingly.


 * Secondly - "your current attitude will get you nowhere here"? Of course it won't. I want to see the correct thing happen for both Northern Ireland and Wikipedia, and it of course it will never be allowed to happen in an Irish MOS. Northern Ireland should never be covered by IMOS - it's skewered the poltical context and given you people total control of it. Ireland still lays claim on NI, and this MOS clearly covers political areas (despite the endless bare-faced lie that it's island-only). It doesn't make any sense. NI is a British country, not an Irish one. It HAS to be part of a UK MOS. The calculated blurring of island/Ireland on Wikipedia makes this the single most corrupt area in the whole encyclopedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We need a WP:UKMOS, which would, of course, include Northern Ireland and would come ahead of WP:IMOS with respect to Northern Ireland. I notice style guides for other regions so we can set one up for the UK and see how it develops. Van Speijk (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * and given you people total control of it: Let added Wikipedia is not a battleground to policies/guideline you seem to ignore. Bjmullan (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "You people", and just what is that supposed to mean? Don't forget that anyone is at liberty to contibute to the proposed MOS, and it's precisely because as far as NI is concerned Wikipedia is a battle ground, that we need such a document. Van Speijk (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Van Speijk, have you asked abrcom about it? The rulings on IMOS are from them not anyone else. Trying to remove part of IMOS is actually a breach of an Abrcom ruling as far as I can make out, I am sure the editors on here longer than I could inform you if it is. As far as I am aware thier ruling on what Ireland is directly affects Ireland manual of style, and they should have been asked before anyone :tried to move a vote on changing this. Murry1975 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clear that up, it Matt should have enquired first to suggest it here aswell as Van speik before he brought it here. Murry1975 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: Per the above arbitration, in the section titled "Guidelines" it clearly states "Disruption: The editing of users who disrupt Wikipedia by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site." The level of personal attacks and incivility has reached a point were notice must be given. All editors are now aware of these restrictions and should conduct themselves accordingly. -- Domer48 'fenian'  17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI, a request for enforcement of the WP:TROUBLES arbitration has been filed here in relation to posts by Matt Lewis's over the past week. -- RA (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland
I have a question about item #3 in this list (I've changed bullets to numbers in this quote for ease of reference):

I'm not sure what #3 is supposed to mean. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's original proposal in Jan 2010 says only that it "reflect[s] common practice". jnestorius(talk) 01:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it mean, "where the state forms a major component of the topic, prefer use of Ireland, even where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context, and even where confusion may arise"? I don't see what is gained by risking confusion.
 * The given example "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland" is not illuminating; the only place that sentence might plausibly occur is in the opening line of the Republic of Ireland article, where the first Ireland would not be wikilinked at all. Can someone give a better example of where #3 will be applied?
 * I now also have a question about item 1 in this list. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon_Airport&diff=475794942&oldid=475475989. Another user reverted me quoting item 1, but I had always assumed this applied to phrases like "Galway is a city in Ireland", where people could read the initial sentence as relating to Ireland even though in the relatively unlikely event of their clicking on the link it would bring them to the article about the Republic of Ireland. The article about Shannon Airport is rather different because the first sentence is one which would be utterly misleading if understood to refer to Ireland, so I feel that common sense would indicate that using Ireland would be inappropriate here even if it was not - as I had assumed - covered by item 2 - since both the republic and the island were being discussed in the same paragraph. In other words in the cases to which it would appear that this provision of the IMOS is meant to apply, the opening lines of the articles are true for either meaning of Ireland, but this clearly does not apply here, so it seems to me very clear that the provision, which only works where that would be the case, should not apply here either. This is agonizing even to attempt to outline here, but any comments? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have been me CCTirnanOg, my reading of it would be common practice is to use Ireland unless the topic is about the island, Northern Ireland or any two or more of them. On Shannon airport it mentions the island once and I pipelinked it as island of Ireland . Give the primacy of use of Ireland as the state I would presume is common practice, pipelinking the island like example 3. The only reason for confusion would be if the usage alternated back and forth. I edited an article which never mentioned the island the other day and removed "Republic of" from a sentence as the island was never mentioned and an editor put it back stating confusion may arise, Ireland has two meanings even when only one is used. The edits of primacy to the island where it is not a major factor would be wrong and, basically equate to using Republic of Ireland continously.Murry1975 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're referring the example I think you are, that was me on Ballina, County Mayo. I didn't bother arguing it, but there is definitely the potential for confusion in the intro of said article – the way it reads now doesn't make it clear whether Ballina has the highest unemployment on the island or in the state. Per WP:IRE-IRL, that is exactly the situation when Republic of Ireland should be used. I admire your dedication to enforcing the MOS, Murry, but I think you may be being a little bit over-zealous! — JonC ॐ 10:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would an article on a place in the state refer to the island without indicating such? Thats the main point of common sense bud :). It isnt over zealous, its just guidelines are too flimsy, which is why IMOS talk is here to help us. Also it wasnt Republic of Ireland it was plain unpipelinked Republic of Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that some editors deliberately and mischievously allege "confusion" over whether the island or the state is being referred to in articles, disregarding the context of the article and to the detriment of common sense. Unless the "reader" assumes that the state and the island is the same thing, there's no way someone could be confused.  And even if this was the case, somebody who thought the island and the state was the same thing wouldn't be enlightened by substituting with "Republic of Ireland" - that type of ignorance goes beyond mere wikilinking and pipelinking, and would require all content to append a mini-explanation after each use along the lines of Republic of Ireland (the state consisting of 26 out of 32 counties on the island of Ireland) .  Although sometimes I feel some editors around here would rejoice at that....  --HighKing (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Why would an article on a place in the state refer to the island without indicating such?" I don't get this at all. That logic suggests that anybody reading an article about a place in the Republic will assume that any reference to "Ireland" means the Republic, and not the whole island. I don't see any good reason for that assumption. Jon C is absolutely right - where there's a reference to "the greatest unemployment in Ireland", people are liable to assume that it means the greatest unemployment in all of Ireland, not just in the state. In these cases, disambiguation in the text is essential. That's quite different from saying that "Cork is a city in Ireland, as recommended in the manual of style, which will not mislead anyone regardless of how they interpret "Ireland". ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of this was cover before and some the rest in the archives,  second mention as pointed above . Shannon airport was edited by myself and re-edited by CCTirnanOG, their point being its not a settlement, "When referring to places and settlements" but if I am not mistaken its still a place. As for example 3, common sense should be used or we would have the mini-explanation of HighKings. Confusion could occur if the state and island where used throughout with clarification, when the state is being discussed and the island breifly mentioned the island of Ireland</nowiki]] sholud be used and conversely if the island is the main topic use Ireland and Republic of Ireland .Murry1975 (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "That logic suggests that anybody reading an article about a place in the Republic will assume that any reference to "Ireland" means the Republic, and not the whole island", why thats logic bud, if I talk about Hong Kong my references to China arent going to be Taiwan. The way to differentiate is use the guidelines above. "the greatest unemployment in Ireland", people are liable to assume that it means the greatest unemployment in all of Ireland, not just in the state" Why does Ireland when no other mention of it is given other than the state draw to the whole island? Why? Your basic point CCtnO is that Ireland only refers to the island and has no other usage, or am I getting that point wrong?Murry1975 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have just phrased it as highest unemployment in the country for the state or the whole of Ireland for the island. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Murry75 - yes, you're getting it wrong. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you'll have to forgive us for picking it up that way, especially when you use comments such as "people are liable to assume that it means the greatest unemployment in all of Ireland, not just in the state." That statement rather sums up the point.
 * My view is rather simple. Why would an "island" produce unemployment stats?  They're published by official bodies of government - the article context makes it clear that Ireland refers to the state.  Similarly, administrative bodies such as counties are objects of government and airports operate within the jurisdiction of a state.  I understand that if you're British, then the name under UK law is "Republic of Ireland", but this is the English *language* encyclopedia, so we can safely assume that others will not be as confused.  --HighKing (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get the point of your first paragraph at all. Murry75 suggested that I thought "Ireland" could only refer to the whole island and not to the state, and you quote a sentence in which I refer to both possible meanings as supporting this misinterpretation of my position? Odd. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's unemployment stats for continents and other non-national divisions. Why is it any more illogical that there would exist unemployment stats for Ireland than for, say, Europe? And as for "Republic of Ireland (the state consisting of 26 out of 32 counties on the island of Ireland) ": I know you're just being facetious to prove a point, but come on – the state already has a natural disambiguator (one that's currently being used as its title), so that won't be neccessary. Or is this more to do with your personal dislike for the term "Republic of Ireland"? — JonC ॐ 12:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The British government does now use Ireland instead of Republic of Ireland wherever possible if it doesn't lead to problems, the law about using the Republic of Ireland has been deliberately ignored since the Belfast Agreement even if it hasn't been formally repealed. Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully agree that the natural assumption is that the state s meant if unemployment figures are given. Anything else would need a special marker. We don't have unemployment figures for the British Isles. Have you ever even seen unemployment figures for North America including both the US and Canada? The next largest reasonable grouping would be the EEC. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced about the unemployment example, though it was perhaps a bad one for me to bring up. If you say, "Ireland's unemployment rate is x%", then that would almost certainly be unambiguous, because, as you say, one doesn't often talk about unemployment figures for anything other than administrative jurisdictions or suchlike. But if you say "X has the highest unemployment rate in Ireland", people might well interpret it in much the same way as "Carrantouhill is the highest mountain in Ireland" and assume that Ireland as a whole is meant rather than the state. Less likely than for the mountain, but still possible. Anyway, the article in question was about an airport, not about unemployment rates. Neither the state nor the island were in themselves topics of the article, so it does not fall into the exception for cases where "the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance)". It would therefore seem common sense to apply the usual means of disambiguation when both are being mentioned, as per the phrase in the manual of style, "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 (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland")." (my emphasis)
 * In any case, the issue should not really be a theological or jurisprudential attempt to interpret the Manual of Style (which in any case, we can always amend if we find it unhelpful or inadequate). Rather, we should be trying to keep articles as informative and logical as possible, and avoid usages that potentially puzzle, confuse or mislead readers. I know that some people strongly dislike the term "Republic of Ireland", but its use on occasions like this is the easiest way to avoid that. For anyone who naturally thinks of the island when they see an unqualified reference to Ireland - and I think there is every reason to believe that there are plenty such people - the previous formulation of the article on Shannon airport could only be confusing. Certainly a look at the links behind the text would tell you what was going on, but the text itself should be clear and not be causing people to think it didn't make sense. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems over the top to say it is the third busiest in the state and then fifth in the island. Personally I'd just put in the island figure and say 'island of Ireland', people can work out anything else for themselves since it is all listed. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Murry75, that silent revert 5 days later on the page in question with an edit summary of "adjust for comp" (what on earth does that mean anyway?) was hardly a particularly convincing answer to the discussion here. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit for comprise, btw you edit against wp:ire-irl again and qouted this discussion, where does it say to edit against WP:IRE-IRL ('Clarify "Ireland" - should not be used as reference to state where island is also under discussion - ref discussion on this topic on IMOS talk page) above? Murry1975 (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So enforcing your personal obsession that "Ireland" should not be used to refer to what is at the Wikipedia article on "Ireland", even at the cost of turning the article into confusing nonsense, is your idea of a compromise? Dmcq suggested an actual compromise above, which I said would be fine by me. You didn't respond but then enforced your confusing preference, at the cost of compromise and with zero regard for the priority that should be given to making Wikipedia useful and understandable to its users rather than a forum for its editors to ride their ideological hobbyhorses. Very unimpressive. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where have I stated personal? Please refrain from PA. The article is not confusing as per WP:IRE-IRL it is pipelinked correctly. Yes his comprise means using Ireland and island of Ireland just as I edited. I dont enforce, I edit. Now please refrain from your PAs and show where your edit was given preference over IMOS.Murry1975 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I am not here to impress, if you are you are on the wrong website. We are here to help the project, by using the guidelines btw.Murry1975 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm with Murry1975 on that article lead. It looks fine to me just saying Ireland and if people still aren't sure it refers to the state and separates it from the island of Ireland. Airports are principally in countries, there is a bit of a chance of people not realizing but the lead does a good job of avoiding that. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats what I taught you meant Dmcq by your comment above, it clearly indicates which is which and conforms within the guidelines sshown in IMOS. Murry1975 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with this too. As it stands, this supposed local consensus now disagrees with WP:OVERLINK, a long-standing project-wide consensus that states: "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." If Ireland needs to be an exception to this common-sense guidance, I would like to see why this is. Are we saying our readers won't know what we are talking about unless we link? Does this local "guideline" have a rationale behind it? Does it imply linking on every occasion or just once per article? That's another breach of OVERLINK right there. On Wikipedia, local consensus doesn't override general consensus without good reason. What would the good reason be here? --John (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * John background on Ireland related articles it stems from an Arbcom ruling. Ireland is an island, the article titled Ireland is this, Ireland is a state the article title Republic of Ireland is this one. There is no rule or guide that overlink overrides IMOS, if you can show me where please do. IMOS is linked off the main MOS page, I notice overlinking isnt. Now stop being a dick and calling it local, its regional. But please feel free to have imput here, it does help. Murry1975 (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal attack is noted, as is your failure to answer my questions. Anybody else? --John (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DICK. As far as I am aware itss not a PA, just a pointer to stop being one. But feel free to ignore my comments. Its the weekend, a full day of sport and not many people around. Murry1975 (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ireland category norms
Hi; is there any opposition to linking from here to the Ireland category norms page WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms? They aren't quite style guidelines for writing an article, but they do have to do with naming and content of categories related to Ireland. I added them but was reverted. This could also be in a see also section for example. I should also add, input and edits are welcome to the category norms themselves, which still need some wikifying and additional work to make them clear.--KarlB (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection. Put the link in. Northern Arrow (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Objections at the Wikiproject talk page don't appear to have been addressed. If it belongs anywhere it's linked from the Wikiproject page, not from the guideline. 2 lines of K  303  19:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I did try to address the objections, I'm not sure which ones still haven't been covered appropriately - if you have specific comments or changes you are most welcome to make them at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Ireland_Category_Norms (or just edit the norms directly). Also, this is linked from the wikiproject page, but I think a different set of editors reads the MoS pages; again since this isn't purely MoS but more administrative in nature, was why I put at the bottom, kept it small, and would even be open to it being as see also. Thanks.--KarlB (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry, again
As the WP:DERRY section seems to be getting used to as carte blanche to change any and every instance of the word "Londonderry" in articles, regardless of context, article subject, time period or sources used, I‘ve raised the matter at MOS talk. I believe it often conflicts with other MOS guidelines on the use of historical names, and in many cases is used outside the IMOS remit. Comments are invited there. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Also, where is the discussion that produced this compromise? The section says “a compromise solution was proposed and accepted” but the archive section linked says nothing of the sort; it’s a series of comments that Londonderry is the correct term. So, where is it? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious: Derry/Londonderry, yet again
I queried this last week, but so far haven't seen any answer. So I'm asking again; where is the discussion that produced this compromise? The D/LD section says “a compromise solution was proposed and accepted” but the archive section linked to says nothing of the sort; it’s a series of comments that Londonderry is the correct term. Also, the compromise (as stated) says "“the city page shall be called Derry”; where was the agreement that transformed that into “the city shall be called Derry in (all ) articles”? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as i know it does exist somewhere. Not quite sure where though, but "Derry" for the city and Londonderry for the county when they are mentioned in articles. Not perfect and the rationale behind it is seriously flawed - but this is Wikipedia. This doesn't appear to be the actual consensus discussion and why it's linked too i am not sure. The "agreements" in them if that's what they can be realistically called a very dated. A proper re-evaluation should be taken i think if we haven't already done it recently. Mabuska (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably help if people looked at histories of pages to see what date periods are relevant. That's probably too cryptic for most people I know, but I can't be bothered going into too much detail to appease someone who's prepared to waste hours of peoples' time just so they can add six letters to the front of another word on one article. 2 lines of K 303  12:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ONiH: Well, as you are prepared to waste hours of my time by deleting six letters from a word in any number of articles, and to edit–war to keep it that way, it seems reasonable to me you should be able to justify it when asked, and to give a better answer when your first is not good enough. The fact that you can't or won't speaks volumes...Xyl 54 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To be fair, you do have to work awfully hard to work out where was the proposal and where was the agreement in the talk page archive that is linked to. There are a few points I would make:
 * The talk page, as archived, is all over the place chronologically. The posts jump from 2008 to 2004 to 2007 and back to 2004. Some of the posts are even split by later posts. It's virtually impossible to reconstruct the discussion chronologically except by going back to the first post and clicking "Next edit" X,000 times.
 * The section linked to is headed "Derry/Londonderry" and begins, "The legal name should be used." That doesn't exactly scream "compromise". It would be better, I think, to say "a compromise solution was proposed and agreed in 2004 regarding the Derry/Londonderry name dispute."
 * The best evidence on that archive page that there was consensus for the compromise at the time is the Requested move at Talk:Derry/Archive 1 where there was an overwhelming "keep" vote, with many editors specifically saying, "Continue with the compromise."
 * Note also that this header was put on the top of the talk page in November 2005, and was still there four years later when the page was archived.
 * The best evidence for consensus since then - and this applies to the use of names within articles as well as article titles - is that the convention continues to be observed. Any edit against the convention is quickly reverted, not by a dedicated band of POV-warriors, but by anybody who has the affected article on their watchlist. Frequently this goes against editors' personal POVs: unionists changing "Londonderry" to "Derry" and nationalists changing "County Derry" to "County Londonderry". Additionally, proposals to abandon the compromise are brought up periodically - on this page, the article talk pages and elsewhere - but never get any degree of support.
 * Bottom line: apart from the edit I have suggested in (2), I think we should leave well enough alone. Scolaire (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Kudos to Scolaire for tracing through the labyrinth. I, frankly, gave up after about 20 minutes. Agree fully with the 'bottom line'. RashersTierney (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree too. #5, to me, is the actual evidence. The initial discussion may have been quite small but it is now very ingrained. -- RA (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Scolaire:Thanks for bothering to reply to this, and for confirming the impression I got from trawling through these discussions: That the archive is all over the place; that the discussion cited as confirming the agreement to this is contradictory (it certainly doesn’t look like a compromise!); and the extension of the agreed compromise that’s in the current guideline wasn’t part of the agreement then or now.
 * Your suggestion for changing the link to something more pertinent is a good one: Is it also worth tidying up the archive page (put stuff in chronological order, label interjections and unsigned posts, etc)? I know we aren’t supposed to mess with archived material ordinarily, but if everyone’s agreeable it might be a good thing.
 * As far as the guideline itself goes, if this compromise keeps the peace, fine. If editors on Ireland-related articles can live with it, and all be a little unhappy together, that’s OK by me. My quarrel with all this is has been, precisely, edits by POV warriors on pages well outside the remit of IMOS, and where the only justification has been an appeal to WP:DERRY. Hence the discussion at WT:MOS. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TBH rather than everyone being "equally unhappy" with it, I think most see it as a positive thing. Personally, I'd call it a "convention" rather than a "compromise". -- RA (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I don't know. I think "equally unhappy" is a fair approximation of the situation. — JonC ॐ 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a closer approximation would be to say that the POV-warriors are "equally unhappy", and the compromisers and neutrals are "equally happy" ;-)
 * I agree with RA: "convention" is the better term at this stage of the game. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I particularly like or agree with that – I like to think of myself as being a better editor than the likes of the mere POV-warrior, and I'm not at all happy with the situation. Nothing on this island, or by extension its presence on here, is so black and white, as you well know. :) — JonC ॐ 10:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Xyl 54: I agree that an edit of the archive page would be justified on grounds of clarity, if anybody was bold enough to do it. I disagree with your view that there are pages that are "well outside the remit of IMOS". IMOS is the Manual of style for Ireland-related articles. Insofar as any article mentions a place or event in Ireland—construed as the whole island of Ireland—it is "Ireland-related". There are no good grounds for ignoring IMOS conventions in an article just because Ireland is not a major topic of the article. Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have edited the Talk:Derry archive page as suggested. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a big improvement; the section makes a lot more sense now. Is it worth also linking to the request move outcome (per your third point) in some way? "...was proposed, and later upheld" for example? And the "proposed and accepted" could sensibly link to the Derry/Londonderry section again, now. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would prefer a wider range of the links to Derry instead say Londonderry and pipe to Derry, but I believe we really need an WP:RfC to establish exactly where that could be done. Arguing about old things won't solve much - the current practice is what matters. Personally I would like something saying the name used in the main citations should be used and Derry used if there is no clear agreement. Possibly for people the name they used could be used if there is no clear agreement, this would stop people plastering 'Derry' all over some Orangeman's page where they have always said Londonderry. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, on some occasions the "convention" is wrong. And no harm in a couple of "also known as ...." additions to articles where justified too.  --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that there are a few pages around that use a pipelinked Londonderry where it is appropriate to do so (ie. how it is listed on a government list). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that an informal discussion would be better than an RfC in the first instance. An RfC might be started later if there were concrete, workable proposals, if there was a lack of consensus on them, and if there was a realistic expectation that opening an RfC would lead to significant input from the wider community. My experience with RfCs on Talk:Republic of Ireland and Talk:Yugoslavia in the last couple of weeks is that at most they attract one or two editors that would not otherwise have contributed, usually someone who is posting an RfC on something else. At any rate, IMOS as it stands reflects current practice, so the place for such a discussion is WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, not this page. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dcmq, the idea of "going with the sources" has been raised before and the consensus has usually been that it wouldn't work, since different reliable sources use one for or the other and that would generally be a recipe for warring over what source to back the name up with. The current compromise seems to work very well and has prevented a ton of edit warring over the years. Valenciano (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with Dmcq's suggestion that we are "arguing about old things". The whole thrust of my argument above was that editing trends over the whole of the eight years, and the failure of periodic proposals to drop the "compromise", show that the consensus has held right up to the present. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I’m not looking to drop the compromise; as I’ve said, if people with very different points of view can find something to agree on, it can only be a good thing. What I am concerned about how it's being used.
 * The compromise does only say “the city page shall be titled Derry and the county page titled County Londonderry”; how far that means all references to the city anywhere must read “Derry” is, I would say, open to interpretation. The possibility of POV warriors using this to “try to obliterate any mention of the others preferred name even in historical events” has already been touched upon. It shouldn't be treated, or defended, as a blank cheque.
 * There are a couple of thousand pages linking to Derry; at least 30 of them are on British and American warships which were based there in WWII (which is what brought me here). All the sources used referred to Londonderry; none of them used Derry. Yet WP:DERRY has been used as the justification for changing what was there originally to what is an inaccurate and anachronistic format. I don't think that's a good thing, for the project or for the compromise. These articles also mention Germany and the Germans; I imagine there are guidelines on WP:GERMANY how German terms, German spelling, etc should be used, but if editors from there were dictating that these must be used, in conflict with sources and general guidelines, then they would get short shrift. Likewise Indian editors changing historic references to Bombay on Ireland-related article to read Mumbai, even if WP:India had a guideline that said they could.
 * To meet Valenciano's point, if it was held that where the sources are ambiguous, the default position would be Derry for the city etc, at least whoever is seeking the change would need to produce some evidence for their intent, rather than just riding on the coat tails of this compromise. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Mumbai/Bombay is a good example - I agree it would be wrong to impose Mumbai on historical contexts and references, but that's because there was a change that took place at some point in time, and at some point after that, common use can be judged to have changed too. Does the same apply for Derry? AFAIK, the competing names have sat alongside each other throughout history (the official name may have switched at specific points, but that's not what we rely on generally). As said previously, I also agree with Valenciano about the superficial attractiveness of simply "relying on sources" in every case. That's not so easy, and is actually more random and capricious than it sounds, given the variation in sources and the variation in the sources that people will dig up at any one time for any one article. We do need a general determination for consistency across the site as a whole - yes, based on assessment of overall usage in sources - and to then follow it. And that is likely to take place, surely, in the context of Ireland-related articles - and surely, in fact, with reference to what has been decided as the title of the main article itself - even if every subsequent mention of Derry/Londonderry is not in such articles? We're not saying the WP:IRELAND project has to decide, or only Irish editors can comment - both article naming debates and any more general compromise discussions are open to all; but once they are concluded, they hold for all as well, unless there's a clear and compelling case for divergence in specific individual cases.  N-HH   talk / edits  07:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The general principle on Wikipedia is that articles should stand on their own and consistency is only a consideration in special cases. These's various bits about that like WP:Other stuff exists. A startup page about WP:Consistency failed as it was against consensus. If anything the usual convention is to follow the editor who set up the page unless there is a good reason to change, e.g. WP:ENGVAR. In general some commonsense should be shown okay but I really don't see the commonsense in ignoring the main citations. If the council can send back letters using whatever the person who sent them in used that surely editors on Wikip[edia can stop fighting the war? Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

an arbitrary break
"The compromise does only say “the city page shall be titled Derry and the county page titled County Londonderry”; how far that means all references to the city anywhere must read “Derry” is, I would say, open to interpretation." - say what? That's a very selective reading of the guideline, which goes on to say "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles". There's no "open to interpretation" in that is there? 2 lines of K 303  10:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The questioner asked for a pointer to the discussion that was based on - and it is definitely open to change. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia is open to change, that's the whole ethos. Whether there will be consensus for such a change is another matter.... 2 lines of K  303  11:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could state a case for what you want? Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to add to what others have said already. The current guideline reflects consensus, and generally keeps articles stable and consistent. I don't see anything good coming of changing it, but I'm open to discussing firm proposals. 2 lines of K  303  11:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Two essays that come to mind with this discussion are WP:BEANS and WP:BROKE. -- RA (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is broke. Do we need to continue the troubles on Wikipedia years after the Belfast Agreement? The business about Republic or Ireland/Ireland seems to have finally died the death - can't this one be fixed as well? How about a bit of constructive discussion? Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Who says the Republic or Ireland/Ireland issue is fixed? Agree with RA and his broke and beans links are apt here. Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you still believe that there is a major issue to resolve about Ireland and Republic of Ireland? The last entry on WT:IECOLL was from 5th April and was a calling notice for a different issue elsewhere. There's some corner cases people still argue about but I don't think there is a large amount of trouble caused. How about actually justifying the current status quo about Derry/Londonderry? We had a big discussion about Ireland/Republic of Ireland and the issues were thrashed out there. Some people may not have liked the decision but it was fairly clear. There hasn't been a proper debate about this, just people saying it would cause trouble or it has already been decided. The Derry/Londonderry problem about the actual titles has been resolved but the question about referring to the articles in other articles has not. Dmcq (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's a certain amount of Ididnthearthat going on here. I have shown at least twice that there is an ongoing consensus on in-article use. The question about referring to the city and county in articles has been raised at fairly frequent intervals over the years. It gives a few people an opportunity to "lay down the law" and call other people names, and at the end of the day a consensus invariably emerges that the current convention is still the best one we have. There never was a structured discussion on the article names, just as there never was a structured discussion on in-article use, but the consensus still is to leave things as they are. Xyl 54 was not wrong to raise the question again, but the evidence that consensus has changed or is lacking, or that the system is broke, just is not there.
 * And I repeat, this is not the place for such a discussion. The OP's question related to the links on the IMOS page and has been dealt with. This question should be raised at IECOLL if it needs to be raised. Scolaire (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm also not in favour of either the current set-up or quashing any new discussion relating to it. — JonC ॐ 21:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you need to translate "we have discussed it and most of us are happy" as "quashing any new discussion"? If somebody opens a new discussion, I for one would be powerless to "quash" it, and I wouldn't want to even if I had the power. In fact, there is a discussion going on right here right now and I haven't seen any attempt to quash it. I can't even guess what quashing it would involve: multiple blocks? deletion of posts? But for what it's worth, I believe that flogging this particular dead horse will lead to nothing but ill-feeling and will not come up with any better solution. Scolaire (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I suggest you'd be the one doing the quashing. I just find it puzzling that you've interpreted the above discussion as a large majority of people being in favour of the current rule. From a quick scan, of the people that've chimed in, five oppose any new discussion and three are in favour, four now including myself. It's hardly overwhelming. — JonC ॐ 07:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * RA:I think it's broke too; or at least, I’ve encountered a problem which was caused, and is being maintained, by an over-rigid interpretation of the guideline here. So something needs fixing, IMO.
 * ONiH:When I said it was open to interpretation, I thought what I'd said seemed clear enough. One interpretation is that “in any article” means regardless of subject, regardless of sources and regardless of any other guideline to the contrary. Another interpretation is that “in any article” means with due regard to all those factors (which is how any other guideline is interpreted)
 * Again, the compromise says one thing; that has been extended at some point in the guideline to “in any article” and that (whatever was intended by it) has been seized on by one side or another to “obliterate any mention of the other sides preferred term”. So you can either defend that to the hilt; or recognize it has caused a problem, and (without devaluing the existing compromise) be willing to fix it.
 * One option, if you want concrete proposal, would be simply to accept a limit on the extent of the guideline to Ireland-related subjects. That wouldn’t even need a change of wording, just an acknowledgement of the discussion and the outcome.
 * Or you could add a phrase along the lines of “subject to support by reliable sources. In the case of ambiguity, the default position is (the compromise)”
 * Another would be to re-evaluate the whole thing in the light of MOS guidelines governing all the other naming disputes.
 * N-HH:As for whether Bombay/Mumbai is a good analogy, you said this is different because Derry and Londonderry have been competing names alongside each other, with the official name switching periodically. I don’t know this is so different from any of the other naming disputes knocking around. I gather the Germans still call this place “Stettin”, while the Ukrainians have always called their capital “Kiyev”, and to the Arabs “Jerusalem” has always been “al Quds”. As for Calcutta, Bombay or Pondicherry, they are just European approximations of the previous (and now current) Indian names. The difference here is that while their usage is determined by MOS, the guideline here is a lot tighter. And that can only cause problems the further afield it is applied. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (I've added a break, BTW, to make this a bit more maneagable. I trust that's OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC))
 * It would be okay if you added a new section at WT:IECOLL. This discussion does not belong on this page. Scolaire (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the IMOS talk page; in what way does a discussion about a problem with IMOS not belong here?
 * I asked a question (which was answered; thanks again for that); I said what the problem was (which wasn't with your compromise, per se, but with what's being done with it) and there was a pile of discussion on that; proposals were asked for on things to do here, and I gave some. How is this not relevant to this talk page? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * IMOS merely states what the current situation is with regard to article content. If you think the current situation is wrong or in need of review (as opposed to how the current situation is represented in IMOS) then you need to raise the question on the relevant page. In this case the relevant page is the Ireland collaboration WikiProject. In the meantime, however, I have made a few points on Talk:Denys Rayner that might address your immediate concerns. Scolaire (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Scolaire that the "consensus" for keeping the status quo is as adamant as you are implying. In my view most editors are simply backing keeping the status quo to avoid mass edit-warring around Wikipedia or debates as long and drawn-out as that over Ireland/Republic of Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mabuska is correct; the status quo is the lesser of several evils. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Also when it comes to discussing something that is part of the IMOS i'd say that this discussion page is the correct and proper place for this discussion not WP:IECOLL. Mabuska (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, now we seem to be arguing about where the argument should be; how very ‘Irish’ of us!
 * Your comments at Talk:Denys Rayner seems fair enough as far as that page goes; (I’ve responded there) but I thought I’d made it clear it’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as my concerns about this go.
 * Still, if it's agreed the discussion has to be replayed somewhere else, I can go with that. Is that the consensus? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would rather not waste (more) time and energy arguing about this, and though a Derry (county) man born and bred I can happily live with Londonderry as an alternative for the county if that stops edit wars. But I do wonder whether, 20 years from now, we might not see Wikipedia reflecting the facts on the ground in 2012, which are that Derry is commonly used for the city (except when unionists are trying to make a point), and that Londonderry and Derry are both commonly used for the county, with fairly clear expectations as to who uses what form. Thus for articles that refer to a GAA club, it would be sensible to use County Derry, whereas for articles referring to mainly-unionist villages such as Garvagh, County Londonderry should be used in Wikipedia. I rather suspect that the only people who care a lot about the Derry/Londonderry issue are people from Derry/Londonderry, but as one of that band, I assert that we all know when it is appropriate to use/not object to the "other" form: thus each article that refers to the county should use one or other form when the subject matter (e.g. place or person) is clearly identified with one or the other section of the community. It would jar with me to refer to Glenullin as being in County Londonderry, and by the same token I would expect Macosquin to be left referring to Londonderry. As things stand, changing GAA articles or Catholic/Nationalist bio pieces to insist on "County Londonderry" is rather petty and tiresome. Brocach (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If we followed official names there would be no issue here. @ Brocach - "I rather suspect that the only people who care a lot about the Derry/Londonderry issue are people from Derry/Londonderry, but as one of that band" - your page states your also from County Armagh. Regardless of that, i can only assume your statement is simply naivety as the issue goes far beyond the borders of the said county. I've heard arguments over it in Dublin. I also totally disagree with your "sensible" idea as it reinforces a polarised usage of Londonderry/Derry - something that should be discouraged. A more sensible idea would be to follow the BBC's way of for the city using Londonderry in it's first mention and Derry continually afterwards. Mabuska (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A way more in conformity with Wikipedia would be to use the sources and treat articles independently. That would also be more in line with the moodus vivendi there. It is not Wikipedia's job to fix the ills of the world but to summnarize the sources neutrally. Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shoot me if I'm asking a silly question, but how on earth, in practical terms, would this issue be addressed by summarising the sources neutrally? Formerip (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On that point (I made a suggestion earlier) we could say that where sources are ambiguous the compromise would be the default position. That way there’d have to be at least one source supporting a particular usage, rather than it just being assumed to be the case. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Xyl, I'm not following. How could sources be ambiguous. Surely they can say one thing or the other? Formerip (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! I mean if we have a number of sources for any given article, and some say one thing and some another (so they are ambiguous on which is "correct"), then (to save argument) we would go to the default position. OTOH If all the sources we have for a subject use the same format, we would go with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's going to mean the status quo for every article, though, isn't it? And in the unlikely event of a case where it doesn't, player B just needs to find a single source in order to make it mean the status quo. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or in some cases, the status quo ante. We'd need to trawl back through the revision history of each article in case somebody made an edit in 2008 which has to be reverted in order to restore the "default". Scolaire (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea of going with "what the sources say" is a recipe for warring as different warriors try to trump each other with different sources. Either of these two names are correct (sources are to substantiate statements, not how those statements are worded) and the good thing about the current convention is that it is a bright-line rule that results in a zero–sum game, at worst, and a fair approach to an unanswerable question, at best. -- RA (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as far as I'm concerned that is a good type of warring. If somebody can get a better source as opposed to just mentions then fine. Should we really have the situation where say some Robert Wilson has the main stuff about him saying he was born in Londonderry and was a staunch Orangeman all his life and we have to stick Derry in his bio? Fine for say some Siobhán Ní Dhomhnaill who joined Sinn Féin in Derry but hardly a parity of respect never mind that it would be unlikely to be following the main citations. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be about better sources though. The two place-names (to many people) are interchangeable, so a truly excellent source could use either. It would just be an artificial game of finding one more source to throw the question back into doubt. Formerip (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow you. By better I mean one that treats the topic in some detail and is a reliable source. Something like the BBC might be very reliable but it might only mention the topic in passing. That is not a better source for the topic. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When I say "artificial" what I mean is you're proposing criteria that there's no reason to suppose would give us a more "correct" title. Abstractly, or the simple question "is this the correct name", it would seem obvious that the reliability of a source is what we would be looking for, not it's length or level of detail. Except we already know that there is nothing about any particular source that can tell us whether it has arrived at the "right" answer. It's a futile exercise, unless you treat it as a coin toss. But in that case, you're still stuck, because there's nothing that can prevent your opponent from going off to find another coin. Formerip (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is discussing titles. They're talking about references within articles. This does not affect the title of any article. Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really make any difference to what I'm saying. Formerip (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to contribute to the discussion? I don't see any relevance in what you've said. Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was but, as as been pointed out below, your proposal is going nowhere, and I don't think there's much chance of you listening to anyone's views about it, so I'm giving up. Formerip (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So basically articles about nationalists and republicans will say "Country Derry" and "north of Ireland" and ones about unionists and loyalists will use their terminology as well. Shall we start painting the kerbs as well? 2 lines of K 303  18:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I prefer to defer to the sources rather than saying I know better and that is the usual solution in Wikipedia when deciding things. The relevant policy is WP:Verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the weight of your argument, there's fuck all worth discussing. We can quite happily verify which city someone was born in, however when that city is known by two different names there's nothing in WP:V that says we have to refer to it using the sources terminology, quite the opposite in fact. In fact if you want to follow your WP:V to its logical conclusion "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citatio" comes into play. So we'll get "so and so say he was born in Derry, but so and so say he was born in Londonderry". Stop wasting time.... 2 lines of K  303  18:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you would go out of your way to try and stick Derry in as well as Londonderry into the bio of an Orangeman by citing some ancillary reference rather than the main ones? Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No I'm just pointing out the folly of your proposal, which won't be getting consensus any time soon. 2 lines of K  303  19:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, this talk of Orangemen is really an appeal to the emotions. It's not particularly helpful in writing an encyclopedia that informs its readers. Martin McGuinness and Gregory Campbell were born in the same city, within a few years of each other. Both of them self-identify with that city; it's not as though one of them prefers to think of himself as coming from somewhere else. So is it helpful to the reader to say that one of them is from Derry and the other from Londonderry? It's not, it can only cause confusion. Whether Campbell's ego is bruised by the WP article saying he was born in Derry (or a nationalist politician's ego is bruised by saying he was born in County Londonderry) can't be a consideration if our objective is to inform the reader from Milwaulkee or Auckland or New Delhi. Scolaire (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You do know that Gregory Campbell walked out when the council changed its name and the official name of the city is still Londonderry? I'm not saying they came from different cities, I'm saying there's no need for us to label the city one thing or the other, we should go by the major sources about the topic when referring to it, the ones that give the topic notability. What emotion is involved when people say they want to just decide on one name and use it irrespective of the sources? How constructive are people who won't give their consensus soon because they say other people would cause trouble but of course they themselves won't? Or who here is determined to stick in Derry if at all possible into articles like Gregory Campbell's and therefore we must always say Derry? Dmcq (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed my point at all. Is it right that two articles should make it appear that the two subjects came from different places when in fact they were born just across the river from each other? And what is that stuff about Campbell walking out if not an appeal to the emotions? Scolaire (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a general invalid argument on Wikpedia. WP:Consistency was rejected as a guideline. You said Gregory Campbell preferred to think of himself as coming from somewhere else. I was pointing out where he verifiably came from. That a place has two names does not mean they are different places. As to your should not argument it is not Wikipedia's job to try and make things simpler than they are. It is an encyclopaedia not a bowdlerized fairy tale where everything is pretty and clean and consistent. It is not our job to fix the ills of the world. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I said Gregory Campbell did not prefer to think of himself as coming from somewhere else. Both men verifiably come from the same city, so they should be seen to have come from the same city. The rest of your response is pure emotion ("bowdlerized fairy tale"?). The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has no bearing whatever on what I said. WP:Consistency was a rather confused attempt do deal with contradictions in articles on programming languages. The fact that it wasn't adopted doesn't mean that Wikipedia doesn't believe in factual consistency between articles. I think we should stop now. The groundswell of support for a change of practice hasn't happened. It's time to move on. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bit of a moot statement to make without conducting a straw poll to find out if there is support or not. Having said that this discussion would need notified at the relevant WikiProjects - Ireland, NI and UK. Mabuska (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need anything. Look around you. It's dead. --Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you evidence that consistency should be considered as an important factor in Wikipedia? I have given you evidence it isn't. Anyway why do you keep going on about emotions? As to emotion I do think that one should listen to one's feelings as they often indicate something useful and I do feel that sticking Derry into the bio of an Orangeman for the reasons given here is wrong. I see no need to prove I am a hard person and lacking in emotion by doing something like that. My feelings do not dictate my actions on Wikipedia but rather inform them in an advisory way. If you have something more constructive to contribute than implying people should ignore their feelings then please do so. If the guideline said go by the main sources would you expend a lot of energy trying to ensure as many articles as possible about Orangemen said Derry instead of Londonderry and if so why? Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh...yeah, okay. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lack of input in a discussion may mean debating in the current way is dead, especially when an editor makes it unbearable to particpate in (i wonder who). However you'd be surprised how many people come back into a debate when a straw-poll is offered or it's started afresh without the baggage of the previous discussion. Also stop avoiding Dmcq's questions - such a poor debater. Mabuska (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * just to say that it's not difficult to find a reference which says that Mr Cambell was raised in the Waterside district of Derry should anyone want to use it. Head-it-behind (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't take much longer to realize that they have copied and pasted bits from Wikipedia. What is needed is the main sources not just any old source. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And if you think that the editorial board of politics.co.uk would allow such sloppy writing, you obviously dont know much about them. Couldnt it be that WP has copied information from them? How do you know which direction the info has travelled? Head-it-behind (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The politics.co page was written in 2010 at the earliest. Here is the Gregory Campbell article from 2009, and here it is in 2008, with the exact same text. Their editorial board is indeed sloppy: Wikipedia is free in the sense that its content may be reproduced with attribution, and by not attributing it, politics.co are in breach of copyright law. Somebody should tell them. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

talk:UK City of Culture
Opinions would be welcome. Does the proposed edit conflict with the IMoS? — Jon C.  ॐ  11:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC) The idea of using the terminology of sources has been rejected by many editors above. It's an attempt to add a Stroke City construction, which we don't do as the guideline says. Mo ainm ~Talk  12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference to the city should be Derry. However when referring explicitly to the title that it won it should say the title as given i.e. Derry-Londonderry 2013, A City of Culture. This is the same as London 2012 which was a protected name as opposed to London or 2012. If we had the IMOS syaing we should refer to it as most of the sources do I'm not sure even then it would come out as Derry-Londondonderry as the city reference. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead as of now does not conflict with IMOS. Per Dmcq, it was Derry (according to IMOS) that won the award. When 2013 comes to have a properly written section in the UK City of Culture article, it should of course include the City of Culture 2013 website designation (but without that ridiculous word "stylised"). But edit-warring over the very brief lead of the article as it now stands is poor form. Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see a case for using this term for references to the city in narrative text, simply based on the source in question. However, it seems relevant and worth noting briefly somewhere, if not the lead, that this is the formal name being used.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be relevant and worth noting briefly when somebody writes a full section on 2013. Discussing it at this point is putting the cart before the horse. It cannot have anything to do with improving the article, if the content to be improved hasn't been added yet, therefore it must be just another artificial POV war. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, Scolaire. My logic for including the reference to Derry~Londonderry is because that's what the whoever's responsible for the Londonderry City of Culture preparations is calling the city. It's worth noting because obviously the celebrations and programmes the CoC thing entails will be in a place calling itself Derry~Londonderry, not one or the other. It's not an attempt to "another artificial POV war" and don't see why it should be taken to be. The hysteria over the (London)derry thing is absurd. — Jon C.  ॐ  14:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's absurd—and I agree it is—why leap in and start stirring it up on every article that presents an opportunity? The rest of the WP community thought the article was fine as it was; what was the urgency about changing it? Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "The rest of the WP community" - and where do you get that impression ^_^ Mabuska (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. From the fact that nobody else rushed in to add "Derry-Londonerry", and nobody outside the usual suspects is even discussing it, maybe? Scolaire (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you show me another article where I've "jumped in and started stirring it up"? Have I done something to offend you? — Jon C.  ॐ  10:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "On every article that presents an opportunity" was a figure of speech. I didn't intend to suggest that you were doing it on multiple articles. UK City of Culture is not a Troubles-related article, just as the Denys Rayner article that sparked off the earlier discussion wasn't. You, Jon C, haven't done anything to offend me personally; the practice of adding "Londonderry" (or anything potentially controversial) to an article that one is not otherwise actively working on improving annoys me. I try to comment on edits, not editors. Scolaire (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Headings
Hi Gents/Gals, Im working on the Odeon Cinemas page. And I am trying to apply 1.3 of IMOS to this page. Wanted to change sub title article from Ireland to Republic of Ireland. Republic of Ireland is mentioned 1 time in the Article Northern Ireland is mentioned 1 time in the Article Ireland is mentioned 8 times in the Article Belfast is mentioned 4 times in the Article UK is mentioned 14 times in the Article. The problem here is that there are cases where Ireland is piped to the Republic of Ireland and where Ireland is piped to Ireland(island). I would of thought where NI is used, ROI should be used to avoid any confusion. I wish to change Ireland venues to ''Republic of Ireland venues. However Murry1975 has reverted my edit here, stating that for headings use the state name. I can not find this in IMOS. Please advise.Factocop (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Murray's interpreation is correct though I can't cite the relevant passage. It would be strange indeed for a title to read "ROI" and for the very next line to look like it reads "Ireland". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats it, there doesn't seem to be a passage to cover it. The Odeon Cinemas article has a Republic of Ireland, Ireland and Ireland mentioned, so I would like to make the distinction and just list Ireland and Republic of Ireland so as to extinguish confusion. Factocop (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit I reverted was solely based on the heading of the paragraph. The two headings are UK venues and Ireland venues. My point on the talkpage being that we tend to use UK/Ireland on states in list as opposed to using ROI unless the list headings (note not sub-headings) are England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. Parity of usage is apllied, the section that mentions the multitude of Irelands was not edited by Factocop to make clearer (nor I), but does need some attention. Murry1975 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I had made my edit pro IMOS. Nothing here has suggested that the edit was incorrect. Though Id agree with Murry in that the article does need tidying up especially in a section above Ireland Venues where Republic of Ireland, Ireland, Ireland and Northern Ireland are all used in the same sub section. This needs to be just Republic of Ireland, Ireland, Northern Ireland. But a sub section heavily using these terms to then go to the next sub section that is simply Ireland (without pipe) doesnt make sense.Factocop (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Trying to find a suitbale comparison. Irish Travellers, Ireland is used as a sub-topic heading, as both NI and ROI are mentioned in the article. But in this case Ireland is used as a sub-topic heading with both NI and ROI mentioned. Certainly this style is confusing. Factocop (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Travellers sub headings are Ireland and Great Britain, which agian apllies parity of use, both are islands, the Ireland heading covers and mentions both ROI and NI. Murry1975 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Using Ireland in the Irish Travellers makes sense, but using Ireland in an article that uses both ROI and NI is confusing. I thought it was a black and white issue but now I'm being introduced to a grey area. Can someone show me where in IMOS that it says use Ireland as a heading when another sub-topic is titled UK and where both ROI and NI are mentioned in the article? Murry, you said you had seen a section on this...can you dig this out? and ill drop it.Factocop (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The error was not not in the headings but in the main body. The republic should have been pipelinked. I've amended the article now. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * have you? there are 5 mentions of Ireland that are not piped and its not clear if they are referring to Island or state. Please can you also show me citing in IMOS that supports Ireland state in heading? Factocop (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A little contextual reading should solve most problems. For example, the link on British law should have been balanced by a link to Law in the Republic of Ireland (which I've now added); this would have avoided the need to mention ROI at all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Laurel, I was confused I thought you were editing on Odeon Cinemas. Some of your edits on Irish Travellers go against IMOS. How is changing Republic of Ireland to Ireland in the same paragraph as Northern Ireland pro IMOS?Factocop (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reading through the Odeon article it does seem a bit muddles. It doesn't seem to mention that most of the first cinemas were opened in England or the UK or whatever, it just mentions places like West Midlands and Birmingham which could be anywhere. Why does it then bother to mention separate states later? If it had made clear early on it was talking about countries the Northern Ireland stuff could be in with the UK, if it wasn't just talking about Great Britain there is no need to say Belfast and Dublin are in different countries just mention the island. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a complete muddle. There are 5 instances of Ireland that are not piped. Its unclear whether they are in reference to state or land mass. I think IMOS should be black and white, so when Northern Ireland or Ireland are mentioned then Republic of Ireland is used. That would solve the confusion. No grey areas. Ill work through the article and try and decide which Ireland the 5 mentions of Ireland are referring to.Factocop (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * i've made an attempt at the page. Please take a look. I think it is pro IMOS most importantly. I've done some rewording to avoid the use of Ireland where I wasnt sure if they were referring to Island or State, and included 2 cases of England, rather than West Midlands.Factocop (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Where, Factocop, can you show consensus for changing the heading? There is no indictation that the heading should read ROI. The revert is not "pro-IMOS". Murry1975 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Murry, I was trying to remove any confusion. Please can you show me in IMOS where it says that Ireland is used in reference to the state for a topic headline despite the use of NI and ROI in the article? You said that you would look for this but as yet produced nothing. The edit was only really a test edit as I had fixed some other items in the text. Did you have any other issues with the other edits I had made. I think IMOS is pretty clear, where NI is mentioned, ROI should be used and especially as Ireland is also in the text. I would have no problem using Ireland if it was reference to the island and Britain, but ROI is appropriate I think, and nothing in IMOS suggests otherwise.Factocop (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If this discussion is about the Odeon Cinemas article (as opposed to the entry IMOS itself), should discussion not continue there? In any event, my 2¢ is that both sections ("United Kingdom venues" and "Ireland venues") should be removed. To simply state that the chain operates venues throughout the UK and Ireland would be sufficient for an encyclopaedia entry. -- RA (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks RA. Murry had suggested bringing the discussion here as he thought that there was a cite in IMOS whereby Ireland is used for stating for headings irrespective of whether NI or Ireland(island) is mentioned in same context. I have yet to see a mention in IMOS to support his view. I have made some alterations to the article to remove confusion but Murry has reverted my edit from Republic of Ireland venues back to Ireland venues even though this is confusing to the reader and NI and Ireland mentioned in same article.Factocop (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically, in lists of states it is "United Kingdom" and "Ireland".
 * I've also never bought into this idea that it is "confusing to the reader" to use "Ireland" and somehow less "confusing to the reader" to use "Republic of Ireland". If someone is not aware that Ireland is partitioned, why would they think there is any difference between "Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland"? Is "Australia" different to "Commonwealth of Australia"? If "Germany" different to "Federal Republic of Germany"? How would using "Republic of Ireland" over "Ireland" introduce any greater clarity for a reader in this context?
 * In lists of states, use "Ireland" (that is the common, formal and diplomatic name of the state). These headings form a list of states. - RA (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would of thought it appropriate to use GB and ROI or Britain and Ireland. I think we have to remember that IMOS was created to deal with articles where confusion may lie in the use of Ireland and Ireland which would supersede anything mentioned at list of states page. Ill AGF and wait for Murry to respond, as he had said that using Ireland as a heading despite the use of Ireland and Northern Ireland being used in the article already is cited in IMOS. So hopefully he will reveal this...otherwise Ill request an RFC.Factocop (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Referring to counties
There may be a gap in the guidelines of this section. What is meant by County? In particular, what is the policy regarding the traditional county of Tipperary versus the modern counties of North Tipperary and South Tipperary? THe following examples are cases in point: Fethard, County Tipperary, Grange, County Tipperary, Dualla, County Tipperary. Should they read "Fethard, South Tipperary", "Grange, South Tipperary" and "Dualla, South Tipperary" respectively? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a naming dab, 'x, County Tipperary' is to me the most common, and therefore the appropriate form. I've never heard a village town or townland referred to as 'x, South Tipperary' 'in real life'. RashersTierney (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. "County" in this case is the "traditional" county (which also happens to be a ISO 3166-2:IE subdivisions of places in the Republic of Ireland). We already use logainm.ie for definitive Irish-language names. The same resource can be used for definitive county, barony, and civil parish location. -- RA (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that "never" is taking it a bit far. For what it's worth, a Google search of "Fethard +"South Tipperary"" yields 22,900 hits while "Fethard +"County Tipperary"" yields 40,000 hits. Similarly, "Dualla +"County Tipperary"" yields 25,000 hits while "Dualla +"South Tipperary"" yields 10,800 hits. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Example County Tipperary" About 7,630 results (0.34 seconds) and "Dualla, South Tipperary" About 3 results (including your renamed article) (0.14 seconds) Q.E.D. RashersTierney (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And South Tipperary is a NUTS level 3 subdivision. I was hoping to avoid the "Is South Tipperary really a county" debate. These sterile debates have been going on endlessly and I thought that everybody had finally come around to accepting that South Tipperary is indeed a county. Logainm, with rare exceptions, prefers to use the traditional counties for its hierarchy. This is because its database makes use of 19th century data which predate the modern counties. Clearly, whichever slution is adopted, the "losing" solution will have a re-direct to the "winning" one. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So don't. It's a red herring anyway. RashersTierney (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As Rashers says, the whole NUTS thing is a red herring. The relevant naming policies are WP:PRECISION (disambiguate only with as much precision as is needed) and WP:COMMONNAME (prefer common names to official names). Both of those policies require us to use "Foo, County Tipp" rather than "Foo, North Tipp". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If NUTS is a red herring, then so also is ISO 3166-2:IE. And by the way, what is the red herring? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Catholic means Roman Catholic
Is there a consensus that Catholic means Roman Catholic for most Irish people in ordinary everyday speech, and is synonymous with Roman Catholicism in Ireland, even if it is not the exact encyclopaedic definition? Red Hurley (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, most Irish people in ordinary everyday speech say "Catholic", not "Roman Catholic". FTR, the main article is Catholic Church, not "Roman Catholic Church", and the related WikiProject is WP:WikiProject Catholicism, not "WikiProject Roman Catholicism". I would like to see "Roman Catholic" replaced by "Catholic" in all cases where there is no ambiguity, such as might arise where Anglo-Catholicism was referred to in the same context. And I would like to see that specifically incorporated into IMOS (the use of "Roman Catholic" may be more common outside Ireland, I don't know). Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No Check out any article in any Roman Catholic category. As a sample, take Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland, or Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland or Category:Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland or Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland or Category:Roman Catholic schools in Ireland or Category:Roman Catholic cemeteries in Northern Ireland. Unless you want to undertake a re-naming of literally hundreds or articles, this attempt should be abandoned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. It may be used as convenient shorthand, but that's all it is. Church of Ireland members would certainly disagree that C means RC... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Catholic" may mean "Roman Catholic" to most Irish people in everyday speech but, for an encyclopaedia, I think "Roman Catholic" is better on some (most?) occasions. As Bastun point out, Roman Catholicism is not the only Catholic church in Christianity. See Catholicism and Catholic Church (disambiguation). -- RA (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should look at reputable Irish journalism and history writing - as appropriate for the period under discussion - in relation to this. I haven't done so myself, but I would be very surprised if "Roman Catholic" was widespread in such material. Certainly the Church of Ireland regards itself as a Catholic church, but in talking about Irish society and politics, use of the terms "Catholic and Protestant" or "Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter" is pretty clear and common. The Dissenters regarded themselves as Protestants just as the Protestants regarded themselves as Catholic, of course... --ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The terms are pretty interchangeable surely in most general use. WP is not an ecclesiastical directory and I don't think in most cases, outside of more technical references, we need to worry too much one way or the other - Catholic is fine and has a clear meaning in the context, and there's no need to add "Roman" (just as there's no need to remove it when it's there; in fact, if we wanted to get bogged down in semantics, which I don't think we do, there's an arguable case that there are historically and potentially derogatory overtones in stressing the "Roman"). On a side point, I was slightly surprised to find that the simple term "Catholic" directs to this "history" page, which reads like a lengthy dictionary/disambiguation entry. I'd have thought the primary topic for "Catholic", and what most people would be looking for, would be the main page about Roman Catholicism. That might also affect any links currently in place of course.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that in the Irish context there are - or can be - slightly derogatory connotations to saying "Roman Catholic" as opposed to just Catholic. I'm also inclined to agree that this is something where campaigns of mass conversion would not be helpful, in either direction, however many souls they may save from perdition. --ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Catholic is the commonly used term as far as I am aware for Roman Catholics however personally I'd prefer we used Roman Catholic as it is more precise. Mabuska (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Roman Catholic" grates when the vast majority of Irish non-Protestant Christians self-identify as "Catholic". In Northern Ireland, the "Roman" prefix is routinely added only by those who are outside that church. The usage can be more than slightly derogatory as it cam imply that the church and its adherents serve a foreign power. Some - the late Tomás Ó Fiaich among them - have preferred the term "Irish Catholic". I would suggest "Catholic" is perfectly adequate, except in the very few instances when it is necessary to distinguish the main church or community from some other group of (Ukrainian, Anglo-, whatever) Catholics. Brocach (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all, looks fairly even so far and I have no personal preference. RC is a tad more encyclopedic.Red Hurley (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move:Derry to Londonderry
Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles → Londonderry – Current convention is based on a compromise that the city be called Derry and the County be called Londonderry. Everyone knows that there has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland and that before being named County Londonderry it was a mash up of County Coleraine and part of County Tyrone. There is no dispute that the county is called Londonderry. So how is this a compromise? Londonderry is also the official name of the city following the siege of Derry when Derry, at the time had been all but destroyed. Londonderry is also a city in Northern Ireland where the majority population are of unionist persuasion and hence would call the city Londonderry. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and hence should use the official name, not a name, born from a skewed compromise to keep a cell of users happy.46.7.113.111 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'd be happy to support such a move, you've placed that template and request in the wrong place. You have to place it on the page you want moved, not here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ireland/ROI section
The Headings section above shows that the section is far from clear to the new reader. It could do with a re-write for clarity. In particular,
 * 1) "When referring to places and settlements in the Republic of Ireland...use Ireland" followed by "In other places prefer use of Ireland" is strange. Why not just say "In all cases use Ireland, except..."?
 * 2) "Prefer use of Ireland" is itself gramatically incorrect and ambiguous. It should be either "Ireland is preferred" or "Use Ireland ."
 * 3) "...or where confusion may arise" is far too vague. How might confusion arise, other than where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context? A specific example should be given, or it should be removed.  Scolaire (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In fact, considering this comment on Talk:Odeon cinemas, should the manual not simply say to use "Ireland", and that all links, piped or not, should be removed per WP:OVERLINK? --Scolaire (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The one concern I have here is the caveat "words that are expected to be understood in the general context". The linking in question is intended to address this, as far as I can tell. RashersTierney (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair point. I have put it in the context of context. --Scolaire (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You know Scolaire this "discussion" is hardly a consensus to use as vindication in your edit summaries. Jumping the gun there quite a bit even if the changes seem to be non-controversial and I don't disagree with them though I've jumped the gun and made an edit in kind, i.e. from "can" to "should" seeing any link to the state called Ireland has to be pipe-linked to Republic of Ireland otherwise we get the island. Mabuska (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Check the dates, Mabuska. If I point out serious problems and suggest solutions on 20 September, and nobody has responded in any way by 6 December, you can't blame me for the lack of discussion. and you certainly can't accuse me of "jumping the gun". Just how long do you think I should have waited? Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ireland/ROI section, part 2
The thread will be archived soon, and has not attracted any comments, so I am going to go ahead and action it. Scolaire (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Scolaire should a part be added for headings? I know it might sound odd, but something like "for headings use comparible"? Or use comparable and if needed link for clarity? Just a taught. Murry1975 (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned headings are just a part of the text. They very briefly summarise what's in the section, so there's no reason for them to be treated differently to what is in the section. Also, per this post, we should not have links in headings. As I said in the discussion above, I am wary of instruction creep. I am against adding new bits just for the sake of covering all possible contingencies. Scolaire (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

MOS does seem to have contradictions and holes. I would of thought using ROI in all cases where NI or Ireland are mehtioned would remove confusion. What I dont think is correct is removing all mention of NI from an article so that Ireland can be used. As Scolaire did at Odeon Cinema WP. Scolaie, those edits need to be discussed.Factocop (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Factocop. It makes sense to do that because it would confuse readers if they have Ireland and Ireland in the same article. It would be right to use Republic of Ireland when the article also mentions the Island and Northern Ireland to avoid confusion. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've actually understood Factocop. He's talking about "using" (i.e. saying) ROI rather than Ireland in certain circumstances (which of course I agree with, and so does the MOS), not about linking. The revised MOS now says that neither "Ireland" should be linked unless it's considered necessary to avoid confusion. My revision originally said that where linking is thought necessary "the name of the state may be pipelinked as Ireland ." For some reason, Mabuska changed that to "should be pipelinked". I would have no problem with that being changed back if people disagree with it. Factocop is also still bitching about the fact that last September I removed a trivial reference to a new cinema opening in Belfast in 2006 (a removal that 20 or so other involved editors had no problem with). This is his second or third attempt to air his grievance so I'm inclined to just let him. Scolaire (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * please Scolaire. Surprise me with some maturity. You removed one of my previous comments because you're easily offended and a sensitive soul. I in turn should remove your last comment then? Just leave it!! In the case of Odeon Cinema as an example, headings of UK and Ireland are confusing when Northern Ireland is mentioned. Either link the heading or change Ireland to ROI. Cases like this headings should be uk and roi or Britain and Ireland.Factocop (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * When you guys are off on your nationalistic meanderings, could you remember WP:EGG and WP:OVERLINK please? Happy Hogmanay! --John (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And the same to you, I'm sure, John. I'm just a thick Paddy, so I'm afraid your subtlety is completely lost on me. Am I one of the nationalistic meanderers? What is it you want to remind us to do, or stop doing? Scolaire (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Derry GAA
[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games] has been notified of this discussion Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Can a new rule be inserted in IMOS that says "When the GAA county of Derry GAA (or more formally the "Derry GAA County Board" is wikilinked, that it should not be shorteden or pipelinked to "Derry" or "County Derry" or Derry. The full title of Derry GAA should be used." Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As in "The GAA county of Derry GAA (or more formally the "Derry GAA County Board") met the GAA county of Donegal GAA (or more formally the "Donegal GAA County Board") in the quarter-finals of the 2012 Senior Football Championship"? I don't think so! Scolaire (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. On mature reflection, perhaps the rule could be confined to the use of the unpiped name at the first time of mention and the shortened name thereafter. For example "The 2012 All-Ireland Football Final, the 125th event of its kind and the culmination of the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship 2012, was played at Croke Park, Dublin on 23 September 2012. Donegal GAA and Mayo GAA, widely considered "one of the most novel final pairings of all time"....". Followed by "Donegal ultimately emerging victorious as Mayo were yet again undone by "the curse"". Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's mature reflection, I shudder to think what a knee-jerk reaction would look like ;-) Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've opened a related thread here. -- RA (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Laurel Lodges, in future if you make a request for consideration could it be followed with 'because' please, and then give a reason? Even if sticking in GAA was a good idea I can't see why we should bother sticking it into IMOS never mind that I can't see any good reason for sticking GAA in everywhere in the first place. Dmcq (talk)
 * Sorry. I thought that the reason was obvious. The Derry/Londonderry debate has been clogging this project for years now. But if you'd like me to formally state it, that's fine. The rationale for this proposal is that it might prevent future outbursts of the Derry/Londonderry hostilities erupting from the GAA theatre of action. There have been several attempts in recent months to ignite frsh hostiliites under the pretense that the GG county board should be an excetion to the Dery/Londondery rule and so should be allowed to call itself "Derry" alone along with the "County" prefix. These attempts have been rejected at WP:Cfd - see County Derry of October 19th. Nevertheless it has not deterred people from using the close alignment between the area of (former)administrative counties and areas under the administration of GAA county boards to create lots of "County Derry" articles and categories. The editor Brownhairedgirl, in her comments on that case said, "1.That Derry GAA does not use the term "County Londonderry" in its organisational structure" and "2.The County Board of Derry GAA includes clubs from outside County Londonderry. So addition to the geographical categorisation, we also need a category to reflect the organisation of the sport. Referring to "Derry GAA" rather than to "County Derry" makes it clear that the category's scope is not that of the geographical county." Is it not reasonable to suppose that that rationale was in the mind of the closing editor on that case? So this proposal takes that decision on board and attempts to make it clear that what is in scope in the wikilink is a GAA entity, like Derry GAA or New York GAA or indeed any of the GAA "counties", not the administrative county. The airbrushing out of this important distinction by the immediate and incessant use of the pipelink would be lessened if this rule was adopted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How often does "County Derry" appear in Wikipedia articles? Because I did a quick search and, apart from the County Londonderry article and the County Derry dab page, I can't find it anywhere! Those categories that you link to were deleted. We don't need a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The pipelinking argument has nothing to do with geographical counties. GAA county boards are abbreviated the same as other sports bodies are. Just as the 2012 FA Cup final was between Chelsea and Liverpool, the Ulster Senior Football quarter-final was between Donegal and Derry. Adding layers of instruction creep to IMOS is not going to "prevent future outbursts of the Derry/Londonderry hostilities" erupting from the GAA or any other "theatre of action". Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I'm not convinced that we need to make a specific exception in IMOS for "the GAA county of Derry". I suggest that it just be added to the list of examples in the second paragraph, thus:
 * Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the organisation; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry, and Derry GAA (which will usually be abbreviated to Derry ).
 * Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. RashersTierney (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't need an IMOS if all problems were solved for all time. Fact is, new questions arise and old wounds continue to fester. You may be sure that some day somebody will open a page or cat called "Blue eyed hurlers in Derry". A large part of IMOS is that it is preventative medicine. The core question is "would the adoption of the proposed rule result in fewer disputes"? IMHO, the answer is yes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Extra verbiage in policies and guidelines is not cost free. In fact they carry a high cost and need to be justified. The relevant policy here is WP:POLICY: "be as concise as possible—but no more concise" and "emphasize the spirit of the rule", We don't need loads of special rules and they would just bog people down talking about rules rather than doing something useful. As it says there "Expect editors to use common sense". And can I also point out WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. And we also don't need rules devoted to things that might possibly happen sometime in the future, that's just a waste of time and effort and imposes a burden on everyone reading policies and guidelines and sets off more pointless arguments. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "we also don't need rules devoted to things that might possibly happen sometime in the future". I think that when you take some time to reflect you will realise that this is just not true. All rules are future oriented. Nobody can be indicted for infringing a law that was not passed at the time of the supposed infringement. All constitutions are about "what if.." situations and putting in place appropriate checks and balances for forseeable eventualities. So a test of "forseeableness" is reasonable in setting rules. In the present case, we must ask ourselves if it is forseeable that ultra-republicans and irredentists will attempt to introduce "County Derry" type articles and categories in the future. As anybody who has witnessed the interminable Derry/Londonderry disputes on wiki over the years can testify, the answer to this test mustbe "yes". Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the bit in WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY about that Wikipedia is not a moot court? The policies and guidelines are not laws and we do not need to provide for the future in the way you say. Dmcq (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus, a manual of style is not about a few people making rules for the many. It sets down what the consensus is on certain matters. Since it must be blindingly obvious by now that your "rule" doesn't have any consensus at all, it cannot go in the MOS. Simple as that. Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The contributions above border on bullying. In the first place they seem to ignore "good faith". Secondly, if proposals can only be made when things are blindingly obvious, then there would be no need for talk pages. You could just work by edict. But that's not the wiki way. Thirdly, if "a manual of style is not about a few people making rules for the many", then what is it? Fourthly it's not my "rule", it's my humble proposal for a change to an existing rule that deserves a fair hearing and not snide comments. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:POLICY explains about policies and guidelines and Scolaire summarized the situation well. They are supposed to describe the consensus about how to do things. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what he wrote. It was intended to give that impression that a concensus had emerged and that the debate could be hustled to a close. How can it be closed when the core questions have not been addressed? To return to the substantive issue. I have yet to receive a reasoned response to "The core question is "would the adoption of the proposed rule result in fewer disputes"? Neither have I received a reasoned response to the question if it "is forseeable that ultra-republicans and irredentists will attempt to introduce "County Derry" type articles and categories in the future.". If I have missed some central point, apart from the throwing about of wiki policies like snuff at a wake, please enlighten me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please act in accordance with the policies rather than trying to make up your own rules for interactions between editors? If you want to change the basis for consensus and policies and guidelines on Wikipedia then discuss that on WP:VPP. The guidelines describe in most cases how things are normally done and we don't start making up ideas for possible problems in the future. If something has not become a real problem then there is no need to start writing down ways of dealing with it and there is no consensus for how to deal with it. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dmcq's contributions to this debate has been to snow me with WP jargon. Yet it was the same editor that waved WP:Bureauracy about the place. I hope that the irony is not lost on him. I'm not here to rule by dictat, I'm here to debate. It was me after all that initiated the debate. I'm not here to hassle anybody into a premature close; I'm interested in all reasoned arguments. The goal for all, I hope, is a true concensus arrived at in a supportive, colegiate way, not a sham consensus. The reason for the 2 questions above is to get past all the wiki jargon and cut through to the heart of the matter. If others see a truer path to the proposal, I'm all ears. But so far, editors have decined to answer the questions, let alone suggest improved ones. Simply saying that "something has not become a real problem" is not the same as answering the "question if it is forseeable that....". Don't just say it - demonstrate it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop flogging the dead horse. The proposal is going nowhere.RashersTierney (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only a dead horse if people refuse to engage. Dead horse occurs when there are circular arguments. So far, nobody has even answered the core questions, so how can they go in circles? Don't be part of the problem, be part of the solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I may yet.RashersTierney (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will address the two questions, then, although my response to them was implicit in my previous posts, and I think it should have been obvious:
 * 1) "Would the adoption of the proposed rule result in fewer disputes"? No. There will be disputes regardless of anything we do. We cannot foresee what form the next one will take, so there is no point in legislating for a recent contoversy that was dealt with without the need to change IMOS. To legislate for all possible contingencies would require adding hundreds of such rules; hence my earlier remark about adding layers of instruction creep. In fact, as we have already seen, the proposed rule itself is more likely to cause a war than to prevent a hypothetical future one.
 * 2) "We must ask ourselves if it is forseeable that ultra-republicans and irredentists will attempt to introduce 'County Derry' type articles and categories in the future." I decline to answer that, because it is an attempt to polarise the debate along nationalist/anti-nationalist lines. Anybody who knows me knows that on this question I am pro-compromise. A rule must be judged by it's intent, and if a proposer explicitly states that the intent of the rule is to target a section of the community with which that editor happens to disagree, then I would judge that rule to be not in the spirit of compromise.
 * Finally, you say, "If others see a truer path to the proposal, I'm all ears." This proposal, by taking out the explicit reference to "the GAA county of Derry" and having Derry GAA as an example of the use of "Derry" within articles, would have exactly the effect you say you want, that of preventing people from using IMOS to create articles or categories.
 * Those are my answers. I will not be taking any more questions. In fact, I will not be taking any further part is this discussion, period. Goodbye and happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree completely with all that. I think I really should try again to address the fairly common misapprehension about how policies an guidelines are set up. Some people think they are set up by wondering what should be done in the future. That is very uncommon and not at all normal practice. They are supposed to distil the best practice about how editors have done things, they arise from experience of problems that have been encountered and dealt with. There are some proposals to change things where there isn't previous experience but they are to deal with bad problems that have already arisen and need to be dealt with. The number of speculative rules is quite small and normally happen to be put in as part of other changes. And the worry about instruction creep is very real, there already is rather a lot of them and many people would like less. Ideally new editors should only need to read a single page like WP:5P and not normally have to do much else unless they come across some specific problem. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire ever heard of bold, revert, discuss? This does not follow that. Whilst I don't object to the addition, proper procedure especially on such an article as the IMoS should be followed first and foremost - discussion. Mabuska (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst I have slightly contradicted myself since this statement by changing the word "can" for "should", that is an instance of correcting an error. Mabuska (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just more of it. I warned above of the dangers of a sham concensus. In the hustle to close this discussion, Scolaire believes that he has already received the approval that he needs for such moves. The move is precisely at variance with the current proposal and can only serve to exacerbate the situation This development is as deplorable as it was forseeable. Despite Dmcq complaints that I was becoming, in effect a Cassandra forcasting tales of impending doom, it has turned out that I was right. Much good may it do me as, like Cassandra, I'm probably destined to suffer the Fate - not to be believed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please try and engage with what people actually say and do rather tan making up things. Dmcq (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Mabuska, there is a discussion going on since 1 December. Laurel Lodged's proposal was opposed, while my proposal, which I made on 2 December, was not objected to by anybody. I left it three days to allow discussion before actioning it. BRD doesn't come into play because it wasn't a bold edit (hence the edit summary "per talk") and nobody reverted it. If it had been reverted I certainly would have discussed it further. Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)