Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 9

Historic institutions
I'm raising this issue here as it doesn't appear to be explicitly addressed at IMOS. For institutions that existed under the Union, is 'country' or 'sovereign state' intended per this edit, also this and this. The former has been my understanding, so 'Ireland' rather than 'UK' would be usual. RashersTierney (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The whole concept of 'country' or 'sovereign state' is a very recent fetish, and very largely confined to Wikipedia. There were any number of 19th-century books, written by people of every point of view, that had no problem with referring to Ireland as a 'country'. Therefore, when 'country' appears in an infobox, Ireland is the country. Those edits are just the usual POV-pushing by some digruntled unionist. Feel free to revert. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. Insisting on the UK is taking it a little far in instances like this. Also Ireland wasn't a province. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ireland, while part of the United Kingdom, should be treated no different to England (e.g. University of Cambridge) or Scotland (e.g. University of Edinburgh). Typically, England/Ireland/Scotland/Wales is given as the "country" (and "United Kingdom" is left out). --Tóraí (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the unofficial rule. No reason Ireland, as a constituent country of the UK as it was then, should be treated differently. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Slightly oblique to current issue, but isn't there a MOS guideline about deprecation of 'UK' at infoboxes (use 'country' as highest geographical entity, or some such wording). I'm sure I recall something on that line but can't think where. RashersTierney (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with the reason that because England/Scotland/Wales are used for that time then Ireland should be also is that the "country" that was Ireland then no longer exists whilst E/S/W still do (debatable as to when Wales became an entity again). Is it not odd that we link to a country for E/S/W but link to an island for I?

If anything we could link to the Ireland section of the article? Though it leaves a lot to be desired on information on Ireland at that time. Mabuska (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is true that the country (that was then) called Ireland has ceased to exist. It continues to field teams at sporting events. It continues to be the organisation unit for religions. It continues to be described as a destination on travel guides. My 2¢ is that, just like England and Scotland, the best place to link for Ireland is (would you believe) Ireland.
 * Is that not where we would link if all of the place was still part of the union? And linking to an article ostensibly about an island is no more odd than linking to Iceland for Iceland. Ireland – then and now – is an island after all. Alternatively, and more in line with the MOS, we shouldn't link at all. --Tóraí (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point on the Iceland comparison, however the Ireland of then no longer exists fact regardless of the anachronistic setup still used by some organisations and travel guides are advertising an island not a country, just like Caribbean Cruises advertises cruises in the Caribbean - not an actual country.
 * The point of using the historical state at time is nothing new on Wikipedia. J. R. R. Tolkiens infobox states that he was born in the Orange Free State, not South Africa, and it's Wikilinked. Rudyard Kipling is linked to British India, not India. Jan Smuts is listed as being born in Cape Colony and dying in South Africa. Davy Crockett is listed as "Greene County, Tennessee (then in the State of Franklin)" and having died in "Republic of Texas". Why are these not simply linked to South Africa, India, Texas, Tennessee etc. There are many more examples on Wikipedia.
 * What I'm trying to point out is that the excuse for using the island has major flaws in it and that WP:OVERLINK is a weak argument always put out by the same editors for not linking Briitsh Ireland to something more applicable. Obviously with that IPs edits and the fact another IP editor raised it above (an issue not raised for the first time) shows that it is an issue, and it's a recurring issue. Obviously linking to an article to something that states Ireland as British straight off or having "Ireland, UK" in the lede or infobox is a massive no for some editors here, but it's an uncomfortable truth issue that should not be swept away with the same old tired reasons. Mabuska (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And to counter Scolaire when they said this: "Those edits are just the usual POV-pushing by some digruntled unionist. Feel free to revert." - is it not POV-pushing by nationalist editors always objecting to something that puts the British into a mention of Ireland? Seems like everytime this issue is raised it's only disgruntled nationalists who want to keep the status quo. Funny that. Disgrunts on both sides :-D Mabuska (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the "Ireland of then" very definitely still exists. I've been to the Glens of Antrim, to Donegal, to West Cork, to Rosslare and to many places inland, and I can vouch that they're all still there. Secondly, Caribbean is an article, regardless of whether it is an "actual country". It's the idea of "it's not all under British rule, therefore it doesn't exist" that I can't get my head around. What I said in my first post was that the whole concept of 'country' or 'sovereign state' is a very recent fetish, and very largely confined to Wikipedia. I stand by that position. I want to keep the status quo because it's based on common sense, not some pedantic notion of 'sovereignty'. The organisations and travel guides that talk about Ireland as a country are talking common sense, and I don't see any criticism or condemnation of them from politicians or academics anywhere. Plus you might have noticed where I said that nineteenth-century writers routinely spoke of Ireland as a country. The only person I can think of that called it a province was Thomas Davis, in A Nation Once Again. That's why I object to people making UK-centric changes on pseudo-legalistic grounds, without any regard to real-world usage. Scolaire (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have thought Ireland piped to History of Ireland (1801–1923) would be a reasonable link. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of WP:OVERLINK is not to link well-known places at all. Linking to "Ireland" is deprecated. Piping to UKGBI is overkill. Piping a place to a history article makes no sense whatsoever. Scolaire (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect, Scolaire, I think your curt tone is unhelpful. IMO, the first question is, what should the text read? After that, the question of what if anything it should link to can be considered.Personally I dislike the WP:OVERLINK rule as it requires a judgment-call about whether something is sufficiently wekk-known not to need wikilinking; I would prefer linking to all proper nouns, but I can't have my own way. Apparently the editors of the infoboxes mentioned by Mabuska feel the relevant places are sufficiently obscure or non-intuitive to need a link. (Aside: There seems to be a distinction in practice between infoboxes and running text.) If we simply say "born in Ireland", then Ireland violates WP:OVERLINK and Ireland violates WP:EASTEREGG. OTOH, if we say, "born in Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom", IMO the fact that Ireland was then part of the United Kingdom is not sufficiently well known and therefore a link to a relevant article will be helpful to a lot or readers. What article, and what form of link, are consequent questions. One might have " Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom " where linkedArticle is History of Ireland (1801–1923), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or whatever. The question of whether "then part of the United Kingdom" is appropriate cannot be addressed by comparison with England, Scotland and Wales, which are still part of that state; look instead at e.g. Iceland, Norway, Finland, Poland, East Germany, Yugoslavia, etc. jnestorius(talk) 11:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, your lengthy response certainly made up for my curtness ;-) The kernel of your argument, as I understand it, is that "the fact that Ireland was then part of the United Kingdom is not sufficiently well known". My response is, why is it the responsibility of an article on an educational institution to make that fact known? Collège Bourget does not say, "The college was founded in 1850 in what was then the Province of Canada, one of the four provinces that went to make up modern Canada." Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Köln does not say, "The academy was founded in 1850 in what was then the Kingdom of Prussia in the period between the end of the Holy Roman Empire and the creation of the German Empire." Certainly, neither of them link to the History of Quebec, History of Canada, History of Prussia or History of Germany articles. These colleges were both founded around the same time as the Catholic University of Ireland, and I picked them entirely at random via categories. I think it's a safe bet to say you won't find an obsession with what 'sovereign state' the site of a college was founded in in the majority of articles on educational establishments. That, as I said to Mabuska, is why I object to people making UK-centric changes to Ireland-related articles on pseudo-legalistic grounds, without regard to general convention. Scolaire (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I concentrate on the substantive text and worry less and less about infoboxes, templates, and other trimmings. I might change my stylesheet to hide them altogether. To clarify: I have no opinion on whether we ought to write "born in Ireland" or "born in Ireland, then part of the United Kingdom"; but wikilinking depends on which we write, which should tally with whether we write "born in Iceland, then part of the Kingdom of Denmark"; "born in Finland, then part of the Kingdom of Sweden/Russian Empire", etc. Conventions may differ for biographies as against educational institutions; discussion at WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Education may be useful to establish e.g. the conventions for infoboxes. The polity in which the Catholic University of Dublin was founded was important in its founding, but discussion of this in the body of the article is more important than a (curt ;) wikilink in an infobox.  jnestorius(talk) 14:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A different point: Collège Bourget and Hochschule für Musik und Tanz Köln are still extant, so not comparable to he historical CUD. Check Category:Defunct universities and colleges by country for better analogies. jnestorius(talk) 16:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks but no thanks. Defunct or extant, either there is mention of the 'sovereign state' when writing about the founding of it or there isn't. By all means, you go through the defunct categories, and if you discover the convention is different for defunct than for extant institutions, let me know.
 * Biographies and infoboxes were discussed during the summer at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Archive 8. At that time, again just pulling a name out of my head, I found that Omar Khayyám links to Iran. No messing around with historical or 'sovereign' states there! This is not new, and every discussion concludes with the convention being maintained that Ireland is just Ireland, regardless of the historical period. This is now formalised in IMOS#Place of birth, death etc.. I see no point in opening a discussion on multiple Wikiprojects on the strength of three edits by an IP that went against what is already accepted convention and were reverted without further repercussions. Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I like Dmcq's suggestion, and still reject Scolaire's argument. Jnestorius' comment is quite good and raises some of the problems with the arguments of overlink and easter egg, used and abused by the same few editors. "UK-centric changes"? Considering it was a part of the UK then, obviously it is UK-centric. Mabuska (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ulster
Ulster used instead of Northern Ireland. From reading the archives and the WP:MOS, it shouldnt be done. Is there any criteria to use it instead? Murry1975 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it shouldn't be used in Wikipedia to describe Northern Ireland. But we also have to acknowledge that it is commonly so applied. So I guess it depends on the circumstance, we'd certainly have to keep it in quotes and the names of organizations for instance. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah as far as I have gathered from the archives "Ulster Says No" is fine, "served in South Armagh, Ulster" is not. Just making sure I havent missed something. Murry1975 (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Agree. On Wikipedia we say "Northern Ireland" but we don't modify the name of institutions or quotations. And I wouldn't labour the point in an article. --Tóraí (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Stating Ulster holds as much legitimacy as using "the North" or "the Six Counties". Mabuska (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, nothing like seeing some on replace Northern Ireland with the North of Ireland is there? (I have came across that, cant remember where, but true story). Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
When a ENGVARB by OhConfusses got change to British-English, I have changed it to Irish-English, first an IP then A newbie (probably the IP) reverts, here is a link to the talk-page and his comment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ian_Harte In terms of writing there's no diff between British English and so-called Irish English, so stop trying to confuse people with a politically motivated edit telling people to use a language type with which they might not be familiar. Your insistence on setting this article to Irish English is not helpful and adds nothing]. Any ideas folks? Murry1975 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that in terms of writing an encyclopaedia article there's no difference. We don't say "Sure, we're after exiting the bail-out". There's nothing wrong with calling it British English. Scolaire (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What Scolaire? I dont follow your logic there. There are several variants of English used on here in en.wiki. Irish English is one, as is British English. EngvarB is used to indicate a non-British English variant on the article- be it American, Irish or Caribbean, this is a guideline on the encyclopedia. And by your logic we then change ALL the Irish-English articles to British-English? Murry1975 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * EngvarB is for all non-American variants, including British and Irish. It essentially means that we use -ise, not -ize etc. I cannot think of any example of something that might be written (outside of quotes) in an article in "Irish English" as opposed to "British English" or "non-American English". As regards your own little edit-war, Ian Harte made his name and his living in England, so I can see no justification for insisting that his article be written in "Irish English", even if that was different to the other two variants. Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I support the existence of Use Irish English, though whether it applies to Harte is another question. I don't agree 'there's no difference'; although it rarely makes a difference, there is no disadvantage in allowing for it. As regards spelling, which is the main robotised purpose of those tags, Ireland does indeed follow BrE rather than AmE. However, in other aspects of the language, I can think of a few differences. Darndale has "a HSE Primary Care Unit", not "an HSE Primary Care Unit".  In a Republic article one shouldn't write "police", except perhaps in an initial "Garda (police)". We don't have "Boxing Day" except on Sky Sports. Editors shouldn't choose a local word/spelling/grammatical construction simply as a form of flag-planting, if a global equivalent is available.  I roll my eyes at Scottish articles using "outwith", when "outside" is just as good within Scotland and far better outwith it. Should Tuam Celtic F.C. say "soccer" rather than "football"? Depends whether the "locale" is Ireland, Galway, Tuam, or Tuam FC clubhouse. In any case, "association football" is the global Wikicompromise. jnestorius(talk) 20:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen an article written in Hiberno-English yet to merit "Irish English", though why do these articles need these tags at all in the first place? Many articles I have seen added with this tag never had a tag beforehand and all used non-American English anyways. Mabuska (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say there is are sufficient difference between Irish English and British English to warrant flagging articles. The differences are subtle enough but sufficient to cause annoyance if an editor went to "fix" words that are fine in Irish English but are not standard in British English.
 * I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about but take for example the List of amendments and referendums to the Irish constitution. In British English, that would be more typically a list of "referenda". I would suggest too that there are differences in tendencies towards or away from certain words ("jail" vs. "prison"). I would also say that Irish English is more open to words that British English would see as American English (e.g. "elevator" vs. "lift"). --Tóraí (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need better words to use to make your point as I use both forms of those examples and don't regard myself as speaking "Irish English". A strange mixture of Mid-Ulster English and Scots, aye but not Hiberno-Irish. Maybe lorry and truck would be better? Mabuska (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments: jnestorius(talk) 10:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Though "Irish English" and "Hiberno English" are most often used interchangeably, it is possible to distinguish between a broader "Irish English" (simply, English as spoken in Ireland) and a narrower "Hiberno-English" (meaning those specifically Irish elements such as one finds in J. M. Synge). I think it's clear that, using those temporary definitions, no article should use "Hiberno-English", but many could use "Irish English".
 * If EngvarB treats Use Irish English the same as Use British English, then there is no disadvantage to using Use Irish English on unequivocally Irish articles. OTOH there is an advantage for human editors unaware of the existence of EngvarB who would be confused or even offended by Use British English. There should be Use Ulster English as well to avoid revert wars on Rory McIlroy.
 * Maybe future cleverer bots will be able to exploit Ireland-specific features; then again, maybe they will be able to do so without any need for a clunky "Use xxx English" template. IMO those tag templates should, to avoid confusion, use clearer names and/or be on the Talk page; but that's another story. AFAIK where commercial spellcheckers have an en-ie setting, it uses the same rules as en-uk but with extra items in the wordlists, most if not all of which are proper names (Oireachtas, Caolfhionn,...). EngvarB currently ignores words with an initial capital.


 * Quote from WP:ENGVAR: This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.. I think the above is what is described as a "lame debate". The tags appear to be more trouble than they are worth and seem to be being used to "claim national ownership". For instance, there's a Use Irish English tag on the Ireland national rugby union team article. Why? That team represents the RoI and part of the UK. The tag is just asking for trouble and not necessary. For the vast majority of articles it's clear what English version should be used, and when someone deviates from it, other editors will quickly "fix it". The Roman Candle (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For the vast majority of articles it's clear to humans what English version should be used, but not necessarily to robots. As I said "IMO those tag templates should, to avoid confusion, use clearer names and/or be on the Talk page". jnestorius(talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

IMOS at List_of_Ireland_national_rugby_union_team_records
Dubsboy has made these edits, basically following my edit history, and adding ROI anywhere possible (like certain other edits). Now he will argue that because Ireland is mentioned and linked in the opening line (an edit he just did, as opposed to this one) that ROI has to be used in the tables. Now as we have discussed before on here its clearly about context use, and the context of use is clear. Any opinions on this folks? Murry1975 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any discussion on either of the article talk pages, or either of your user talk pages. There are no sanctions for following WP:BRD, so why don't you revert, then discuss with the editor. FWIW, I think he's clearly out of line, and he apparently has a history of disruptive editing, but that's no reason to call in the cavalry before discussing the edits with the editor. If such a discussion shows that IMOS is capable of interpretation in different ways, maybe then we should discuss it here with a view to re-wording. Scolaire (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't have a strong objection in that case since it represents the whole island and both parts are mentioned. I think I'd say island of Ireland or the whole of Ireland at the top as well rather than just linking. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dmcq as both the island and state are being discussed, with the island mentioned in the very first sentence so I believe it should be mentioned and that it should state "the island of", which I will be WP:BOLD and add. In the table it mentions Ireland the team which represents the island so it would be wrong to state "Dublin, Ireland" as we are taking about states in the ground field and Ireland the island is not a state. Mabuska (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still not seeing any discussion on the article talk pages! IMOS is not the place for discussing article-related content issues. Scolaire (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This was really an attempt at meat puppetry from Murry1975. I think my edit removes ambiguity which is the whole point of IMOS. Just to note that Murry1975 made an IMOS edit prior to my own replacing Republic of Ireland with Ireland. Something he does systematically across wikipedia, much the same as that other IMOS warrior. I've a telephone call here from a Mr Pot looking to speak to a Mr Kettle. Telephone call for Mr Kettle. Must be a wrong number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Meat puppetry? I'm lost here. Who's he supposed to be acting for? Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well it appears he is trying to get a gang together to revert my edits. Why else would I be cited in the topic title? This topic is as much about my application of IMOS as it is about the viewpoint taken by Murry1975.


 * Please read WP:NPA there, please strie the comment.
 * As this is an issue that will affect more than one article we need to garner consensus. And do not refractor my edits again. Murry1975 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And the edit I originally made was replacing Dublin, Ireland with Dublin, Ireland, now IMOS would state no-linking- but I general will link if it linked already. So do not misrepresent the facts the DB. Murry1975 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the personal attacks began when the topic was raised regarding myself rather than the ambiguity of IMOS. We clearly have different interpretations of IMOS. This conversation is as much about my application of IMOS as it is about yours. You believe that it is ok to remove every instance of Republic of Ireland with Ireland, when at times it clearly goes against IMOS and opens up articles to confusion.Dubs boy (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh didums. No I dont believe every circumstance, but when it is clear context as the list Lansdowne Road, Dublin, Ireland is pretty clear where it means. Now considering this is the arounf the sixth page you have stalked me onto its smelling very fimilar. Murry1975 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) This shows your personal view. You seem to want to impose your POV on here. Murry1975 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Then it brings your own POV into question if you do not believe it is ambiguous to say that the Ireland(representing Ireland) rugby team play their games in Dublin, Ireland. And if I see a user make an error on a page that is on my watchlist, as a custodian of wikipedia I will correct the edit. I would hope you would continue to do the same, as you have done.Dubs boy (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Naming people
I have a question related to Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles. In the case where Kevin Danaher article says "His "academic" works were signed with his Irish name, Caoimhín Ó Danachair." not a particularly well known bio, there must be better examples. Joseph Campbell (poet) (redirect from Seosamh MacCathmhaoil) etc. Are there cases (not for these examples, generally) where the English name is used in some articles/contexts and the Irish name used in other articles/contexts? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Or is there a blanket rule that whatever name is used in Bio article title, all other article mentions must follow suit? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, there's no rule at all. In-article use, as often as not, depends on the cited sources. An article can only have one title, but there are plenty of instances (Seán T. O'Kelly / Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh) where the two names are equally well-known, and the choice of article title is more or less by lottery.  Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Scolaire thanks, that's a clear and helpful answer. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Scolaire, follow up question. How does your answer relate to MOS:FOREIGN "'Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. ... For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article", could that guideline be read to say that the Irish spelling "Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh" should be removed from all other articles because the bio is, as you correctly say more or less by lottery, at the English spelling Seán T. O'Kelly? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on guidelines. However, what you have quoted to me there says that there should be consistency in the title and the text of an article. It says nothing about "all other articles". As for "spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article", that is exactly what I said to you above: "In-article use, as often as not, depends on the cited sources." Where two names are in common use, it is to be expected that one of them will be "more commonly used" in the sources for some articles, and the other in the sources for other articles.
 * I'm not sure of your reason for pursuing this enquiry, but I can say that I have never seen a problem arising from the in-article use of Irish or English versions of a name where both versions are commonly used, and I would not like to see any articles disrupted just for the sake of bureaucracy. --Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding. The guideline applies to the name used in English, not just the English name used in documents. Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh is used in lots of English documents and is used in English. If it was just used on sources in Irish then of course it wouldn't be a common name in English. Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Scolaire, User:Dmcq. Thank you both for your answers, yes that's clear-ish to me also, however I still wonder if the guideline should be word-smithed to make it clearer?
 * Scolarire, to address your question for pursuing this enquiry, it is a general principle related to en.wp style, it could be applied to German/Hungarian, Ukranian/Russian, Serbian/Albanian or any other area of "joint claim" on en.wp. I did not know that there has never been a problem arising from the in-article use of Irish or English versions of a name where both versions are commonly used, and am glad to hear it. My specific reason for questioning how WP Ireland handles MOS:FOREIGN is due to MOS:FOREIGN being cited at Talk:Pablo Casals as reason for removing the Catalan name "Pau Casals" from the 30 of 300 articles which had used it rather than his Spanish name "Pablo". I am not sure there is a direct parallel with English/Irish names and Spanish/Catalan names, but I do know that WikiProject Ireland is a much more editor-populated and active area than WikiProject Catalonia, and less controversy affected than e.g. the Balkan projects, hence more likely to have some calm experience on how to handle such issues - as in fact your answers have demonstrated. I hope this explains the question. I have no problem whatsoever with the state of any Ireland articles, which overall seem to me exemplary. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL and National Day of Commemoration
One IP hoping southeast England editor and one registrared editor using an IP, have both being editing the infobox and catergory list, just IP editor and IP/registrared editor. Both adding ROI in the info box, and adjusting a Ireland cat to a ROI one that doesnt exist. This is the third article that I have edited over a period of months where a pop-up s/e England IP has reverted me (see above for one) and the other user has been on here awhile as an IP, set up an account main edits are GB-->UK and Ireland-->ROI (claims ROI is the name of the state since the ROI act). Now some advice and imput please. Murry1975 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

IMOS on a side note
This edit added Banner o Airlann to the flag of Ireland article. Two things, firstly a quick search doesnt throw-up anything, and secondly, as far as I am away we dont use U/S on articles state centric. Again imput please. Murry1975 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Bagenalstown/Muine Bheag
The IMOS states "Where the English- and Irish-language names are different... and the Irish name is official and has gained favour in English, use the official Irish name (Muine Bheag, not Bagenalstown)." Bad example, as Bagenalstown is still far more commonly used that Muine Bheag. Is there a better example? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cobh rather than Queenstown. Dún Laoghaire rather than Kingstown (or Dunleary). Port Laoise rather than Maryborough or Leix. I would disagree in relation to Muine Bheag itself though, it seems to be in common use going by Google. Gaelmise (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Bagenalstown - 276,000 results. Muine Bheag - 176,000 results. The Dún Laoghaire example is a good one (Irish name used instead of an anglicised version); the others, not really, as they were places that were renamed. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I recommend simply changing it to Dún Laoghaire/Dunleary. The examples in a MOS should be unambiguous, and the application of the MOS should be thrashed out on the individual article talk page, if necessary. Scolaire (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes I thought Bagenalstown was more common, I'm surprised Muine Bheag occurs so often. Dmcq (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really see what is ambiguous in the case of Dún Laoghaire. The Irish version of the name clearly has gained favor in English use. Gaelmise (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops! Looking at the edit I've realized that Dún Laoghaire is not appropriate at all. It is supposed to illustrate the situation where the English- and Irish-language names are different. So, if it was still called "Kingstown", but Dún Laoghaire was used more commonly in English, it would fit the bill. That is not the case, however, and Dún Laoghaire is really an exception to the previous rule, that if the English- and Irish-language names are the same or very nearly the same, but the spellings differ, you use the English spelling. "Queenstown" and "Maryborough" are similarly unsuitable, because they are not current names. Regretfully, I am going to have to revert to "Muine Bheag, not Bagenalstown" unless and until a better example of different, current names is found, or it is decided to change the wording of the MOS. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. Will put my thinking cap on... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's so hard to think of a case where the rule applies, is it worth bothering to have the rule at all? jnestorius(talk) 10:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland
Can anyone direct me to the archived discussion/vote that led to the current MOS for 'Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland'? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, and here (two sections), easy to find if you read the archives. Murry1975 (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to avoid trudging through a lot of archives by catching the attention of someone who knew exactly where to go. Both of the links you gave are from after whenever the real debate occurred and accept the IMOS as a given, they're just tinkering around the edges. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the Poll on Ireland article names, ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm searching for the source for the blanket insistence that all links to ROI must be pipes and that when both the state and the island are being discussed, 'Republic of' must be dropped in favour of 'island of'. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about IMOS itself, then you have no choice but to trawl back through the archives. That section is not the result of a single discussion/vote, but has evolved over several years, and is the result of consensus arrived at in different discussions at different pages and forums (or sometimes conventions that arose over time without there being a definitive discussion/vote, as is the case with pipelinking, for instance). The discussions on Ireland, island of Ireland and Republic of Ireland largely took place between about August 2008 and September 2009 at the respective article talk pages, Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles/Ireland disambiguation task force and its talk page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, WT:IECOLL and the poll. Pipelinking was one of the issues that were meant to be discussed after the naming poll ended, but by then everybody seems to have accepted the pipelinking solution, because that, and other, discussions never took place. IMOS was edited at various times during those discussions to try to reflect current consensus. The second discussion that Murry linked to above was where we talked about tidying the resulting guideline so that it was concise, precise, informative and in line with current conventions.
 * It's not particularly helpful to use phrases like "blanket insistence". If you are dissatisfied with the wording of IMOS you can always make suggestions for change. Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ta, I'll have a look. Gob Lofa (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It works as is, please don't suggest changing it. Mabuska (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles
Please give your opinion at Talk:Derry. Dmcq (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Article namespace double-disambiguation
I would like to get a confirmed consensus agreed and put into WP:IMOS on what convention should be employed in regards to article names, for when the issue has arised in the past, there is always disagreement between a few editors (including me) over a preferred manual of style, and the discussion always seems to be left unresolved with editors simply removing themselves from the discussion. Thus there never seems to be a consensus to call upon when the issue, as it inevitably, as it has recently, re-arises.

There is more than one place in the island of Ireland called Castlereagh, thankfully all located in different counties or civil parishes so we add a simple disambiguation title such as "Castlereagh, County Down" or "Castlereagh, County Offaly". This seems to be the common standard for place names anywhere in the world when it comes to situations such as this looking at various articles such as Leitrim, Aughrim, Ballykelly, Newcastle etc.

If there is two different types of geographical unit that have the same name, for example "Keenaght", which can either be a townland (a small unit of land in Ireland) or a barony (a far larger unit of land), then the common standard seems to be the use of brackets, hence we have "Keenaght (barony)" and "Keenaght (townland)", with Keenaght being a disambiguation page. The use of brackets for different types of unit is also used to distinguish: the town of Ballymena from Ballymena (borough); the town of Carrickfergus from Carrickfergus (barony) (and Carrickfergus (song), Carrickfergus (poem) incidentally); the disambiguation page Ards (a lot of different uses for that term) from Ards (territory), Ards (borough), Ards (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency); the town of Newcastle-under-Lyme from Newcastle-under-Lyme (borough) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (UK Parliament constituency); etc. etc. etc.

Going by the discussion between myself and Jnestorius at Talk:Castlereagh_(County_Down_townland), we seem to agree that the above seems to be the way of handling such disambiguation. Now here comes the bit that seems to be the crux of the issue and it is where we disagree... How do you disambiguate two different types of entity that are both in the same place that also needs disambiguated from the same thing in a different place? For example "Castlereagh, County Down" can refer to a townland but also to a barony, however there are other baronies and townlands in Ireland called Castlereagh. My personal opinion is to use "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)". Jnestorius prefers "Castlereagh (County Down townland)" and "Castlereagh (County Down barony)", which they have also used for "Castlereagh (County Roscommon barony)".

The standard for places of the same name in different locations gives "Castlereagh, County Down" and "Castlereagh, County Roscommon". The standard for different types of unit of same name gives "Castlereagh (barony)" and "Castlereagh (townland)". Ergo logically combining these two standards produces "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)" and that is what I believe should be the accepted MoS for double-disambiguation.

Mabuska (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As you say, it's a case of double-disambiguation. The question then is, which is to be the primary disambiguator? If it is the location, then "Castlereagh, County Down" becomes "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)". If, on the other hand, it is the entity, then "Castlereagh (barony)" becomes "Castlereagh (County Down barony)" and "Castlereagh (County Roscommon barony)". Either is a logical combination of the two, but neither is the logical combination. Either a case has to be made for each of the two, and the stronger argument decides, or one has to be chosen arbitrarily. Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that me and Jnestorius disagree with each other on what one, and I don't think either or us will change our minds so it may have to be chosen arbitrarily, though my argument to me is logical based upon the standards we already use for place and unit, and frankly looks better and more encyclopedic. On your suggestion, I would say (obviously) that location is the primary disambiguator. Why? Because we already have several different Castlereagh baronies and townlands, so obviously the type can't be the primary disambiguator but location. The use of a type is as a secondary disambiguator. That is plain from the fact both mine and Jnestorius' preferred choices put location before type. Mabuska (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the statement "we already have several different Castlereagh baronies and townlands" uses entity as the primary disambiguator. It says that within the entity set there are items at different locations. And putting one word before another doesn't say anything about precedence. "County Down barony" is good English and "barony County Down" is not, that's all. I'm not taking sides here; I'd just like to see stronger arguments. Scolaire (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't think stronger arguments can be given by either side. Personally my preference combines the standards used for same name different place and same name different type. I was going to post this at the Disambiguation WikiProject and may yet request their advice as this issue may intrigue them and they may know of other examples elsewhere that can help. Mabuska (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be a good idea. That talk page is more active than this one, and participants are more used to debating the pros and cons of disambiguation. A word of advice: make it brief and make it neutral. You summed it up well in a few sentences in your first post: How do you disambiguate two different types of entity that are both in the same place that also need disambiguated from the same thing in a different place? For example "Castlereagh, County Down" can refer to a townland but also to a barony, however there are other baronies and townlands in Ireland called Castlereagh. My personal opinion is to use "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)". [Another user] prefers "Castlereagh (County Down townland)" and "Castlereagh (County Down barony)", which they have also used for "Castlereagh (County Roscommon barony)". Any more detail is TL;DR, and an explanation of why your version is (obviously) right is more likely to kill discussion than encourage it. Scolaire (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My belief is that "Placename, County CName" is only NATURAL where there is only one place of that name in the county. In all other cases it is not natural and hence ought not to be used. The only time someone would use the formula "Castlereagh, County Down" to refer to the townland (as opposed to the barony or borough) would be in a context where it was clear only townlands were being discussed but not clear what part of the island was meant. Maybe if they were giving a list of Irish townlands? Rather artificial. I'm not sure conventions elsewhere are applicable: e.g. Attica (town), New York and Attica (village), New York look weird to me. jnestorius(talk) 08:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For those examples I'd have used Attice, New York (village) etc. I will go ahead and post Scolaire's suggestion at the disambiguation project page and see what they think. It might be intriguing enough for them. Mabuska (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've requested their help. Mabuska (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And here as well as there seems to be two, though I think the original request was not the actual WikiProject. Mabuska (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The second one (the WikiProject) is for disambiguation pages, as opposed to disambiguation in article titles. Typically, the only replies you got so far are there. Scolaire (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

it is now seven days since you posted the request at WikiProject Disambiguation. Only one member has offered an opinion, and he/she has come down in favour of brackets over commas. Having asked the question, I think you will have to accept the answer. Scolaire (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue only affects four articles, one of which (the Roscommon townland) is a redlink, and the other (Roscommon barony) is a very tiny stub only created by Jnestorius after the issue arose so that they could reinforce their argument against me using Castlereagh (barony) and Castlereagh (townland) as the primary topic namespaces for the County Down versions. Reasonable enough, if there is a good reason to deny them the primary topic namespace.
 * There is another possible solution. Considering Castlereagh (County Down townland) is an actual article of sourced content and that Castlereagh (County Down barony) will be more substantial when I get around to it (in the style of Ards (territory) and Lecale, that they occupy the primary topic namespaces of Castlereagh (barony) and Castlereagh (townland), with "For the..." at the top of each article pointing to the obvious. Considering the high probability that the Roscommon townland version remains a redlink and the barony one a very tiny stub—unless Jnestorius decides to work on them—they could be in one article titled Castlereagh, County Roscommon, which mentions that they are both land units in that county. Problem solved. Mabuska (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mabuska (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Problem solved" -- what problem do you think is solved by moving Castlereagh (County Down townland) to Castlereagh (townland)? jnestorius(talk) 00:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And why ping me? I offered the completely disinterested view that if you ask a question at the relevant WikiProject you should go with what you're told there. If you decide to go off and do something different that's no concern of mine. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply because you left thr last reply before mine thinking I should accept the answer. At Jnestorius - this problem, what else? Do you have an actual argument as to why they can't occupy the primary topic namespaces? Or do you want to keep avoiding answering directly as your unreasonableness of this issue really goes to new heights. There is no other Castlereagh townland article on this site so why can't the County Down townland article occupy the primary topic namespace? It can include a "For other townlands in Ireland called Castlereagh see Castlereagh (disambiguation)" at the top of it for the redlinked townlands, which would be standard practice on Wikipedia. Or will you decide to go and create them for badness just like the Roscommon barony? Mabuska (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Consistency
I have added a bit re Derry / Londonderry asking people to keep to the pattern even when the subject relates to one side of the sectarian divide. This appears to be the way in which existing appeals to this guideline expect it to be interpreted but I thought it would be good to be explicit. Hope that's okay. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:British politicians convicted of crimes
I have been involved, in a minor manner, in one of the places this is being discussed. An RFC has been put out too. Talk:Martina Anderson. Murry1975 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change of Northern Ireland location maps
A discussion is being held at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland about the map used in all NI settlement articles that have an infobox. More input is needed please. Mabuska (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment -> changing Kingdom of Ulidia to a redirect for Ulaid
Per the section title. Discussion at Talk:Kingdom_of_Ulidia. Mabuska (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

NI political parties
Do we insert the Irish name for political parties after the English-language name, for Unionist parties that don't use Irish, ever? I would assume that the corollary from Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles would apply and you wouldn't insert an Irish-language name where the organisation itself doesn't use an Irish name. Giving the DUP and UUP an Irish-language translation just seems pointy to me. Others disagree. Thoughts? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No; this just seems like trying to annoy the political parties. It doesn't make sense to give them Irish names, for they don't use the language at all. There is absolutely no need at all. Also pinging the editor who added it: . st  170  e  13:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Giving the UUP/etc Irish names is misleading and wrong. They never use Irish names.____Ebelular (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that if we did that, we would need to include Ulster-Scots too, which likewise wouldn't make the nationalist parties to happy either.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's ridiculous, as is adding made-up Irish versions of names of recipients of the Victoria Cross, e.g. John Hogan (VC).--Damac (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's seems like a clear consensus - will remove them, so. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Project: Northern Ireland
I recently removed the WP:NI banner from a few pages (Ulaid for example) because the province refered to as "Northern Ireland" was not founded until 1921. User:Mabuska objected saying that Ulaid (and the other articles I removed it from) are related to the area that is now refered to as "Northern Ireland" so it doesn't matter if it wasn't founded until hundreds of years later.

So basically I am asking should the WP:NI banner appear on talk pages of things that happened before the province's foundation?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is normal practice, for example Rheged existed long before Scotland ever did but that WikiProject is included on its talk page. Elmet existed before Yorkshire did but has its Wikiproject banner. Gododdin has the English, Welsh and Scottish ones despite the fact it never reached into Wales! The Battle of the Alamo took place in the Republic of Texas not the USA but it has the USA WikiProject banner on its talk page. Similarly why does the DUP talk page include the Ireland WikiProject banner when the DUP was founded in NI and only stands in NI along with the fact the NI WikiProject is a child of both the UK and Ireland WikiProjects? Most settlements in NI where founded before NI was created, should we also remove it from them as well? Mabuska (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The area refered to as Scotland etc has consistently remained the same while the boundaries on the island of Ireland have not. As for areas where boundaries have changed (Texas) I dont see how that matters. Policies should be evaluated based on their merit not based on whether they are normal practice or not.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided any logical rationale for your argument and you obviously don't know the geopolitcal history of Scotland very well. Let's not forget Lothian being part of Anglo-Saxon England and the Hebrides belonging the the Kingdom of the Isles and the Orkneys and Shetlands belonging to Norway all whilst Scotland did exist... Very consistent... Unless you provide something meaningful or get others to input and all agree with you then this issue is closed. Mabuska (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I already stated policies should be evaluated based on merit not based on what you label "normal practice". You ignored this.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Kievan Rus' has banners from WikiProject Belarus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine, WikiProject Poland and WikiProject Russia, none of which countries existed for hundreds of years after the topic of that article, except Poland which has the least overlap of the four with it. So convention appears to be on Mabuska's side. I can't see what policy is being contravened here; it seems to me that anything that might be of interest to a WikiProject can and should have that project's banner.
 * In any event, this is not a question of style, so the MOS page is not the right place to discuss it. Scolaire (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No policy is being contravened and as the WikiProject shell banner says "of interest to the following WikiProjects" and in articles such as Ulaid, which historically where confined almost entirely in what is now NI with key figures, events and places located within what is now NI so it is highly relevant. You want to go the legendary capital of Ulaid? Its at Emain Macha outside Armagh; the historical capital of the reduced Ulaid, then Dun Lethglase (Downpatrick) in Down; or maybe that of the Dal nAraidi of Magh Line at Rath Mor outside Antrim? The significant ancient battles of Magh Rath or even Moin Daire Lothair? All located obviously in NI. Mabuska (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Irish translations of names for topics
My understanding of this page is that it does not support translations into Irish at the start of the lead of the title of general topical articles such as Irish art, Transport in Ireland, Road signs in Ireland and so on, where the Irish form is most unlikely to be used in English. That has certainly been the normal interpretation, to judge from what we now have in articles. The actual text of the page refers directly to proper names, especially those of people, and lacks a plain statement of this principle as it refers to general topics where the Irish name is just a translation. Perhaps a seperate case is proper names such as Tara Brooch, which also would not be referred to by an Irish form in English, and the Irish form is a straight translation. This IP is reverting to defend a number of translations to Irish added to the lead sentence of subjects where this is not needed - subjects including Irish art, Catholic Emancipation, and so on, all unlikely to be referred to using the Irish form in English.

I think it would be useful to briefly clarify the position on the page. If there is support, I will suggest a draft wording here. The last discussion touching on this issue was I think this long and rather inconclusive one in 2013, which mostly seems supportive. Naming conventions (use English) is certainly supportive, and is the appropriate guideline where there is nothing specific here. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - agreed, absolutely; Naming conventions (use English) is clear, and the intention of IMOS, as far as I'm aware, was always to just use English in articles unless there's common usage - in English - of the Irish name. Indeed, it's certainly always been the practice to not include translations of people's names where they don't use the Irish name themselves, so translating the likes of Tara Brooch would be rather odd... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. You should go ahead and add the draft wording here. Scolaire (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks both - later today I hope. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - last time I checked (which is right now), this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft
CURRENT section (here with 4=, not 2):
 * Irish-language conventions

Where a subject has both an English and an Irish version of their name, use the English version if it is more common among English speakers, but mention the Irish name in the first line of the article. Create a redirect page at the Irish version of the name as appropriate.


 * Example: Bord Scannán na hÉireann (redirect page) → Irish Film Board

Conversely, when the Irish version is more common among English speakers, use the Irish version as the title of the article. Mention the English name in the first line of the article.


 * Example: Gaelic League (redirect page) → Conradh na Gaeilge

PROPOSED (unchanged sentences in italics):
 * Irish-language conventions

The general principle is that Irish should only be used where it is commonly used in Ireland in spoken or written English. This applies to both article titles, and whether a translation is needed in the first sentence. The Irish name needs to be referenced to demonstrate it is used in English.

Translated names of general topics such as Irish art, Transport in Ireland, Road signs in Ireland usually do not need to be given in Irish. Exceptions may include cases where the Irish term is not a straight translation, or where it is commonly used in English.

Where a proper name subject has both an English and an Irish version of their name, use the English version if it is more common among English speakers, but it may be appropriate to mention the Irish name in the first line of the article, and to create a redirect page at the Irish version of the name. This is especially likely to be appropriate for places in Ireland, government organizations, and some people, but may not be for other subjects such as films and companies.

* Example: Bord Scannán na hÉireann (redirect page) → Irish Film Board

''Conversely, when the Irish version is more common among English speakers, use the Irish version as the title of the article. Mention the English name in the first line of the article.''

* Example: Gaelic League (redirect page) → Conradh na Gaeilge
 * DRAFT ENDS

Please comment below. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments on draft

 * I would just add that the Irish needs to have a reliable source showing the name is in use. Just a translation of the English isn't acceptable, it needs to be A) used and B) referenced. Canterbury Tail talk 22:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, added that. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought this was all implied in the original text but seeing the discussions I think this is an excellent addition to clarify. Also agree with Canterbury Tail's addition. I would say though that even if the Irish term is not a straight or obvious translation, if it isn't used in English, there is no need for it to appear within the first few lines although there might be a reason to include it later in the text. That is getting into acting as a translation tool.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 09:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the proposal is over-elaborate on one hand, and somewhat awkward on the other. It now appears that the recent edits were done by a sockpuppet of a well-known troll, and a major addition to a MOS to directly address somebody's trolling is not generally recommended. If there is no consensus for adding the Irish for something like Irish art, it need only be reverted. There is no need for an appeal to IMOS, and a troll is going to ignore an appeal to IMOS anyway. I would have a problem with "should only be used where it is commonly used in Ireland in spoken or written English". If an Irish version of something is commonly used in Irish, then that should be stated at the beginning of the article. It's purpose is not "to demonstrate it is used in English", but simply to demonstrate that it is used. An obvious example is place names, such as Wicklow (Irish: Cill Mhantáin). That sentence also begs the question of how you define "common" with regard to use in English v use in Irish, and the question of how you verify that something is used in "spoken English" if it's not written down anywhere. If we think we need a statement for things to complement the statement for people, then the obvious thing IMO would be to duplicate the existing statement for people, which, mutatis mutandis, would give: The "databases" sentence deals with edits like this, where a list of translated names is used as a "reliable" source for the addition of an Irish version. Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Edit: I've edited my comment above to add "with regard to use in English v use in Irish", because on re-reading the comment it looked like a contradiction to then propose "if it is a well-known, commonly used name". I think that common sense (and reliable sources) will show whether something is common in general, but deciding whether something is in common use in English, as opposed to in Irish, would involve a great deal of hair-splitting. Scolaire (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * An Irish version of a subject's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that subject if it is a well-known, commonly used name for that subject. If there is no commonly used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research. Also, the mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources, such as databases, is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used.
 * I don't see this as "a major addition to a MOS" at all, but a minor clarification of what everybody seems to agree is the existing intention of the guideline, which it unfortunately fails to actually say explicitly. That this person was (perhaps - no action was taken, as you know) a sockpuppet of a troll doesn't really remove the problem - the next one might not be. If we "just revert", and they just revert back, citing the ambiguous policy, then where are we? Btw, we have at Great Famine (Ireland) "The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór ..." - no idea if that is appropriate or not. If a particular Irish term is often used in English, then the internet ought to show up examples - that's exactly what it's good at. If it doesn't, then - tough. To show usage we don't need RS. I'm fine with the database sentence, which imo would be best added at the top. I don't really see that place names need to demonstrate usage in English speech myself - they nearly all have translations already, and you can imagine how trying remove any would go .... My draft says "this [a translation] is especially likely to be appropriate for places in Ireland...". There are various issues with your/the existing wording - "An Irish version of a subject's English-language name" begs questions - what about things that are normally always referred to by an English name, but where the name is derived from the Irish? It is surely better to just say "don't have an Irish name" than "it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research"?  Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, I don't see your proposed text as "a minor clarification"; it's an additional 200 words, or 10% of the current text. It would better be described as instruction creep – adding more and more instructions on the basis that "the next one might...just revert back, citing the ambiguous policy". You seem to have missed my point that any editor that ignores consensus is likely to ignore a MOS as well. Second, your Gorta Mór is an excellent example of where your proposal falls down. Anybody (in Ireland at least) who has studied the Famine knows it is called an Gorta Mór in Irish. But is it "commonly used in spoken or written English"? Well, nobody says "the depopulation of Ireland was a result of an Gorta Mór". Is this a good reason to remove it from the first sentence of the article? Absolutely not, any more than "Armenian: Հայոց ցեղասպանություն" should be removed from the first sentence of the Armenian Genocide article. You ask, "what about things that are normally always referred to by an English name, but where the name is derived from the Irish?" This is precisely what we want to include in articles on Irish personal names, place names, names of organisations etc. What we want to exclude is "invented" Irish names for people and things whose names are neither derived from Irish nor commonly used, including names invented by anonymous web page writers at irl.gov or similar. I'm afraid your post shows that you are missing the whole point of IMOS. Scolaire (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm missing your point, certainly, which I had not understood before, but there are three other editors above who seem to agree with my understanding of the implied meaning of the policy as it stands, and normal practice. My intention is not to add instructions, but to make clear what appears to be the existing policy. "Irish personal names, place names, names of organisations" are not good examples, and are covered specifically in my draft - whiskey would be a better one. I haven't missed your point "that any editor that ignores consensus is likely to ignore a MOS as well" - I just don't think it is a very good one. If it comes to edit wars, it is indeed important that MOS pages are clear, with as little easily-avoided ambiguity as possible.  You argument would apply to any MOS point at all,  and has clearly been rejected by the community, given the size of the MOS. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, this is something that I had not understood before, that you believe the existing policy is not what is stated in the policy as it stands, but rather "the implied meaning of the policy as it stands". So, when the MOS says, "use the English version if it is more common among English speakers, but mention the Irish name in the first line of the article", it actually "implies" the opposite: that the Irish name should not be used unless it is "commonly used...in spoken or written English." That is patently not so! IMOS, like any MOS, exists to give guidance as to what should go in an article, not to say "Thou shalt not". In this case, it specifically recommends mentioning the Irish name. The three other editors above "seem to agree with your understanding" of the MOS because your suggestion looks reasonable at first glance. They may, like you, not have thought it through fully, and you certainly cannot "imply" that they disagreed with my criticism before I made it. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Whisky is not as good an example as Irish whiskey. The latter follows IMOS, and has done for the last ten years; your revision would make it non-compliant. Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed better, thank you - but my revision would not make it non-compliant. Why do you think that? Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Stepping back, I think that this discussion needs more input from the most active editors on Irish articles, especially those with deeper understanding of the (sometimes complex) interaction of English and Irish. One thing easily missed from outside is the tension between "officially invented" Irish terms - with the best of intentions, these are often rubbish, with no historical context, written in the "official dialect" or in "shorthand Irish" which no native speakers ever used, and in fact are never seen except in (largely unread) official publications.  This, I think, is the point made that "mere inclusion in a database" is not a solid ground, and we need to be clear that many names, in particular, simply have no real Irish form, and as happens in many languages, when referred to in an Irish sentence, should simply be included in English in inverted commas.  Beyond this, there has been the phenomenon, often both patronizing and damaging, because the words sound wrong, or lose content, of "simplifying or substituting" Irish words - a serious hash was made of multiple street names in Dublin a decade or so back, for example.  None of this precludes the necessary task of filling in gaps in the lexicon of Gaeilge - normal word formation simply does not always keep up in these fast-moving times - and project teams like DCU's Fiontar and various committees have done and do good and necessary work, which Wikipedia can reflect, but with some kind of common sense "usage test."  And then again, recall that in many Gaeltacht households, made-up words like "rothar" or "gluaistean" are covered by the genuine but maybe less cute "bhisicil" or "carr," so sometimes what some might see as odd-looking terms are in real use.
 * Second, many articles were hit with this "pseudo-translation" and it will happen again, individually and en masse, so while rule creep is the last thing we need, a small tweak to the IMOS is probably worthwhile, as a tool to make dealing with bad behaviour faster / easier, especially if landing on admin without local context (and all admins are pressed for time, as I understand). In this respect, I like the proposal: "If there is no commonly used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research. Also, the mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources, such as databases, is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used." with application driven by common sense, and more boldness (I know I was hesitant to revert some of the recent nonsense, in case I offended someone who genuinely believed this was helpful to the language and its usage; I will be more brisk next time). SeoR (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I would be one who agreed that there should to be a line to point to which refutes the use of made up Irish terms for things. But an Gorta Mór is an interesting choice because that is a good use of the Irish for a concept in an article. That is what the period was called and I have heard it called that in both English conversation, artistic and historical discussion. So having read all this I am more confused by what is intended than I was to start with. "Officially invented" Irish terms are often a disaster, terrible translations which indeed lose the historical term and its original meaning. These "pseudo-translation" words are as bad, suggesting an actual term exists in Irish which is not really the case. I think it makes sense to be able to point to a sentence that indicates that makie upie Irish is not to go into an article and a pure translation is unnecessary as there is an Irish Wikipedia for that. But I would heartily object to eliminating things like an Gorta Mór. As a tentative editor on the best action to take when someone is apparently trolling but not breaking a specific or obvious (to me) rule, I appreciate there being a place I can point to and use to say "Stop". But perhaps that is just my own failing.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 09:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also agreed. There's a clear difference between the likes of "An Gorta Mór" (a term returning over 29,000 hits on English-language sites) compared to, say, "Renua Éireann" (no hits on English-language sites (or, indeed, any sites outside the Irish version of SIPO, and ga.wikipedia.org)). Scolaire's proposed wording would appear to do exactly what's needed. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except address the original point where we came in above, which you supported. I am not against having an Gorta Mór at all, especially in the light of User:Antiqueight confirmation of usage in English. I am against Irishing Irish art, whether or not the Irish term used actually exists in Irish, or is the correct one.  I have no objection to Scolaire's proposed wording, but it does not at all address the original point that brought me to raise the subject here. Saying "just revert" is no answer - I did that, and got re-reverted, citing this page, which is currently only by implication against (eg) the Irishing of Irish art.  These are two different issues - personally I have only experienced a problem with one of them, but am fine with changes addressing both. But please don't tell me "my" one doesn't exist. In fact my draft does cover Scolaire's issue perfectly well, because made-up terms will naturally fail the test in it: "The general principle is that Irish should only be used where it is commonly used in Ireland in spoken or written English. This applies to both article titles, and whether a translation is needed in the first sentence. The Irish name needs to be referenced to demonstrate it is used in English." and so on. But I'm fine with spelling it out.   Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Except that "Irish should only be used where it is commonly used in Ireland in spoken or written English" is contrary to IMOS and to Wikipedia practice generally. It is no more reasonable than "German should only be used where it is commonly used in Germany in spoken or written English" or "Spanish should only be used where it is commonly used in Spain in spoken or written English" – see Weimar Republic (Weimarer Republik) and Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español). There is no justification for such a change, and no consensus for it. Are you also proposing to change this MOS? Or this one? They are also ambiguous enough to allow users to drop foreign-language names into French art or Japanese art. My proposed wording does address the issue of "Irishing" simple terms, without overturning fifteen years of consensus to do so. Scolaire (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it would have been saved a lot of time if you had said this, rather than "Support in principle" to a clear statement of this principle. Surely it is completely obvious that comparisons with Germany and Spain are well off the point, as German and Spanish are what one hears on the street there, just as in Ireland one hears English.  I'm now very puzzled where you actually stand on translating "Irish art", and what principles you use there. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I said "Support in principle" deliberately, because I could see a point to editing the MOS to discourage the indiscriminate addition of "lang-ga" templates, but I wanted to see what kind of draft wording you would propose. When you did propose your draft, I commented as I did because I assumed you understood the general principles, and just hadn't thought through the wording completely. It was only when you continued to ignore all my arguments and push your "spoken or written English" version that I saw you genuinely didn't know what you were talking about and needed to have it spelled out. Getting in a strop about it doesn't move the discussion forward (and I suppose neither does me responding to it). I will make firm proposals in due course. Scolaire (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do please clarify where you actually stand on translating "Irish art", and what principles you use there, as requested. I'm afraid you haven't "spelled out" anything except that you are opposed to invented Irish terms, which of course I'm fine with adding, as said above. Your recent comments don't at all reflect the support you say you maintain for "editing the MOS to discourage the indiscriminate addition of "lang-ga" templates", nor does your draft address this. If, as your latest unnecessarily personal and pointy comment claims, there are "general principles" beyond the deprecation of invented terms that I'm missing, you'd better spell them out - I suppose we agree they aren't clear from the current IMOS text. I raised the question somewhat tentatively at the start, and User:Bastun in his positive response articulated perfectly clearly what my main concern is. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me what to do, and please don't act as if you own this page. Bastun and others have said that my proposed text addresses your concerns better than your own proposed text. I will clarify my views when I am ready to do so. Scolaire (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal
Rather than say "use the Irish name here" and "don't use it there" in three different places in the MOS, I propose to re-arrange it so that there is a single, clear guideline at the beginning, and other sections – place names and people's names – refer back to it. My proposed version is in my sandbox, and the difference between the current and proposed versions are here. The important differences are: Thoughts,, , , , ? --Scolaire (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Move "Irish-language conventions" to the top of the page, as this affects later sections.
 * 2) Create separate subsections for article titles and in-article use. In the latter section, add, "An Irish version of a subject's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that subject if it is a well-known, commonly used name for that subject. It may also be used in the appropriate field of an infobox. If there is no commonly used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes original research. The mere fact that an Irish name appears in certain sources, such as dictionaries or databases, is not sufficient evidence that it is commonly used. Articles on general topics such as Irish art, Transport in Ireland etc. should not have an Irish translation in the first sentence or the infobox."
 * 3) Keep that part of the "Orthograhy" that refers to the séimhiú and the fada in "Irish-language conventions", but move the part dealing with Ó and Mac to the "Naming people" section.
 * 4) Change the relevant sentences in "Place names" to "The guidelines for Irish language names, above, apply to place names."
 * 5) Move "Naming people" to the top of the "Biographical articles" section. Change the relevant sentences to "The guidelines for Irish language names, above, apply."
 * As far as my concerns go, this leaves a huge gap between "An Irish version of a subject's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that subject if it is a well-known, commonly used name for that subject." and "Articles on general topics such as Irish art, Transport in Ireland etc. should not have an Irish translation in the first sentence or the infobox". You at least need to say something like "if it is a well-known, commonly used [can be toned down] name for that subject, used in English in Ireland." Tons of vagueness and scope for argument there. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm confused by what you are asking to add since it does say "well-known, commonly used". This version of the encyclopaedia is in English. There is one in Irish. So I don't see that an additional line about the well-known, commonly used name needing to be used in English in Ireland.
 * There is something somewhere I do need to go back to but I'm in the wrong location for comparing the 2 texts so I will review that in the morning. In general I agree with the need for something and the current suggestion seems comprehensive but as I say - I want to take a look where I have 2 monitors to hand.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 22:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "An Irish version of a subject's English-language name may be given in the first sentence of the lead of an article on that subject if it is a well-known, commonly used name for that subject" suggests "well-known, commonly used" in Irish, not to mention being vague phrases very capable of causing arguments. You really need to say what language it is "well-known, commonly used" as an Irish term in. Note that this is reinforced by the section on place names lower down, which says "The guidelines for Irish language names, above, apply to place names." My understanding is that all ROI place name articles ("settlements" anyway) do and should have the Irish name in the first sentence, where there is an accepted one.  So the two together strongly suggest that "The guidelines for Irish language names, above" mean that anything with an Irish name that is "well-known, commonly used" in Irish should give this in the first sentence. A minor point on an unchanged part: in "When entering counties into Wikipedia use the full term County, not Co or Co.." the italicized words are unnecessary and "entering" somewhat confusing.  Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your continual carping is becoming tedious, if not downright disruptive. So let me spell it out once again. Your interpretation of IMOS in your latest post is almost 100% correct: anything with an Irish name that is well-known and commonly used in Irish may (not should) give this in the first sentence. The MOS offers guidelines on when it is appropriate and when it is not. It doesn't say, never has said, and never was intended to say, that it may only be used if is well-known and commonly used in English (Bastun's erroneous statement in his initial comment notwithstanding). Irish is the first official language in Ireland. It is the first language of many people in some parts of Ireland, and a frequently-spoken second language of many more people throughout Ireland. It is not, as some people seem to believe (not saying you're one of them), a made-up language pushed by Provo-loving fanatics. The current IMOS guidelines are supported by MOS:FORLANG and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. There is no justification and no support for overturning them. Now, will you please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? --Scolaire (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I can see I made a huge faux pas in intruding on your page! You have managed to beat Bastun into line to follow all your apparent changes of mind, and perhaps others. In the course of this discussion you seem to have said contradictory things about my key point several times, and your draft reflects the same discontinuity. I'm happy to leave you all to it. Hail to the Chief! Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I find the above wording very workable, but I also need to double-check that I'm not missing something. Assuming good faith all round, this has become a little fraught.  I'm sure we've all got the same objectives, taking account of the existence of WP:GA too.  Most of us in Ireland value the language, and would value a reasonable presence in WP, but avoiding artificial over-reach.  I think it's worked well enough in recent years, so as I said at my first entry, avoiding rule creep, I suggest to make the smallest change necessary to facilitate control of abuse or mistaken editing. SeoR (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank for raising the issue and  for his work on the draft.  I think the wording proposed by Scolaire works well and covers all concerns. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Scolaire one major problem is that "commonly used" is vague and means different things to different people. Perhaps an explicit minimal number of reliable sources should be provided then? Or maybe a source from the organisation or whatever it is itself?80.111.164.98 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would refer you to the box at the top of the page that says "it [IMOS] is best treated with common sense". "Commonly used" should be interpreted using common sense, rather than adding a raft of new rules. Since you are the same person that added all the "lang-ga" templates in the first place, and since you are a sock of an indef-blocked disruptive user, your comments should be taken with a kilo of salt. Scolaire (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Common sense is itself subjective and vague. There will always be instances where the line is blurred. See Sorites paradox for an example of how a seemingly clear and obvious concept is problematic. There needs to be a clear line. Also is it not innocent until proven guilty?80.111.164.98 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

We should just remove all usage of the Irish language in these articles, where there's an english translation. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Irish language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No - that I would absolutely have to disagree with. Irish terms are part of everyday life and topic discussion on some topics etc. There are fundamental differences to how language is dealt with in Ireland to the UK or the US (or Oz etc etc). One of those differences is a recognition that some terms are as likely to be in Irish as English. Those are the ones that should absolutely be referenced in the article on the subject. But creating a translation just to have one is pure trolling.   &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 21:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's safe to say we can ignore unhelpful one-liner throwaway remarks designed to inflame. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * An Irish word, will have no meaning to an English-only reader, if it has no english translation. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith all round, this has become a little fraught as has said. So I am not going to reply further here for a few days. Hopefully everyone will cool off and we can all come back and review this with clarity and stop getting on each others nerves because I do think we are in fact all fairly closely in agreement.<em style="font-family: Georgia; color:red">   &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion has been open for seven days, and there is a clear consensus in favour of my edit, so I'm going to do it now. Scolaire (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Supported! Sorry, meant to come back to this later March, but some real life rush pre-Easter, then a short break.  But on mature reflection, I continued to see the Scolaire Proposal, if we may call it so, as a good balance.  Now we just need to keep doing what has mostly been done for the last 10+ years, handling this topic sensibly, recognising the specific complexities in Ireland.  Thanks to both the original proposer and the closer for the exploration. SeoR (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to close this discussion now. If anybody wants to reopen it in the future, they can do so in a new section. Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Current use of the Ulster Banner on Wikipedia
I am aware that this topic has been raised in the past regarding the status of the flag, but I feel that the usage of the Ulster Banner on Wikipedia should be addressed. Given that Northern Ireland does not have a flag that represents itself, should we really be using the Ulster Banner to represent Northern Ireland?

I propose that we remove the flag from the template or else replace it with the Union Jack, which is legally the only flag that represents Northern Ireland. Articles such as the Commonwealth Games and List of FIFA country codes use the UB to represent NI – but we ought to remember that the encyclopaedia is supposed to be accurate and neutral, and we should not use the flag to mirror sporting tournaments because that would be entirely erroneous and misleading. (This was originally posted at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland, tagging and ). st 170  e  17:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In response to 's comment at the previous discussion: I do know that some of the population use the flag to represent NI but the flag has no official status. It would be better if there were a concrete rule that we could apply to the whole encyclopaedia rather than the status quo and that's what I hope will happen. st  170  e  17:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Official status means little on this site when the state called Ireland is located at Republic of Ireland despite its official name and the city of Londonderry is located at Derry despite the former being the official name for the city. Regardless of de jure, the flag is de facto used to represent Northern Ireland in many fields and is only objected too by a minority of people (no matter how large a minority) in Northern Ireland, most of which are Irish republicans who don't even acknowledge Northern Ireland's existence never mind a flag.
 * In short the flag is indistinguishable in representing Northern Ireland. The Union Flag on the other hand is indistinguishable in representing the United Kingdom even though it has never being officially put into law. Mabuska (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure – but those two examples deal with article titles, not flags or emblems, but I understand your point. With regard to the flag's usage, I think it's unfair to group supporters of the UB along the religious divide. When dealing with flags, especially in the case of Northern Ireland because it's such a contentious issue, a consensus needs to be agreed for a concrete style usage for the flag instead of the wishy-washy status quo. Although used to represent Northern Ireland in international sport, it is entirely misleading to continue to use the flag.
 * The UB didn't become the official flag until 1953 and ceased in 1972. Currently, it has no status. I'd argue that a flag should not be used in the case of Northern Ireland and it be removed from the template. If a flag were absolutely necessary, should we not use the Union Flag? It's the only flag used by government institutions (i.e. Stormont, Hillsborough Castle), but I'm not sure why a flag is absolutely necessary for an encyclopaedia.  st  170  e  23:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to dispell some myths here.

Firstly, we need to get over the idea of any "official" status of any flags. Here's why:

The flag of Scotland (the saltire) has no "official" status. It was, however, mentioned in the Scottish Assembly a couple of decades ago, and may have gained "official status" because of that. I don't know if any actual legislation was passed, but there had been no legislation before that. However, despite some peoples' objections to that particular saltire, it was very definitely the flag of Scotland.

The flag of England (George cross) has no "official" status.

The Union Jack has no "official" status.

The only flag which I believe has any real status is the flag of Wales (the red dragon on a green field). It was legislated for "officially" some time in the 1950s.

Secondly, we need to get over any idea that the Union Jack (or, as some people seem to be calling it in the last decade for some reason, the "Union Flag") is "the official flag of Northern Ireland".

It most definitely is not. The Union Jack is the flag of the United Kingdom.

The confusion has come about by the fact that during official international visitations to Northern Ireland, the British government bodies involved will fly the Union Jack on relevant buildings. This has to do with government representation etc, but does not change the status of the flag of Northern Ireland (or, as you call it, the "Ulster Banner") to 'official' or 'unofficial'. It is not used to represent Northern Ireland on those occasions.

The Northern Irish flag has actually been around since about 1924, at which point it became "official" depending on interpretation of that word. The government of Northern Ireland didn't adopt it for use until 1953. Probably no coincidence that this was the year that Queen Elizabeth II was crowned.

As the Northern Irish flag was never really "official" to begin with (just like the aforementioned flags of England, Scotland and the UK), it has not suddenly become "unofficial" or lose any "official" status.

The flag is, however, the de facto civic flag of Northern Ireland, as is the English flag for England.

That some people reject use of the flag is quite irrelevant. These same people, more often than not, also reject the actual official status of Northern Ireland as a part of the UK (as Mabuska as suggested). I don't think Wikipedia should mirror that sentiment with regard to the status of Northern Ireland. Equally, I don't think Wikipedia should make a statement (as it currently does) with regard to the flag of Northern Ireland.

I actually asked a vexillologist from Queens University Belfast about this matter of "official status", and he had to agree with me when I presented him with the facts about the flag of England etc.

The problem with the Union Jack is that it does not represent Northern Ireland as a specific entity. It represents the United Kingdom as a whole.

The flag of Northern Ireland is the only flag, that I can think of anyway, that represents solely the country of Northern Ireland.

So..


 * Wikipedia should not use the Union Jack to represent Northern Ireland, unless in situations whereby the same flag is used to represent the other constituent parts of the UK.


 * Wikipedia is taking a political stance by omitting the flag from any articles.

Also, bear in mind the "official status" of other flags. Take a look at the article on Cornwall. The Cornish flag is displayed in the infobox. It has the same "official" status as the flags of England, UK and Northern Ireland.

I certainly understand people have political opinion, but political sentiment should not get in the way of Wikipedia presenting reality. There is no other de facto civic flag for Northern Ireland.

To that end, I think the currently offensive policy of Wikipedia with regard to the flag be revisited and changed. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, I understand the points you've made. The key difference between the rest of the flags used in GB is that the NI flag isn't universally recognised by all communities. If we split along nationalist/unionist parties in the Assembly, it's more or less 50%-50% (given that unionist parties will support the UB/nationalist parties will not). In absence of a de jure flag and where the de facto flag is controversial, should we not seek a neutral, alternative option that maintains the neutrality of the site?
 * I disagree that no flag is a political stance – government institutions do not use the UB as a matter of policy, whereas the English, Scottish and Welsh flags are used on the appropriate national days. The saltire is hoisted on St Patrick's Day in London if my memory serves me correctly as an alternative. st  170  e  12:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On that point St170e, the only flag that receives official usage from an NI government institution is the current NI Assembly flag;

Considering the Ulster Banner only has claim to usage for being the Government of NI emblem from 1952-1972, surely there's an argument to be made that the current Government of NI flag has the same merit? It would seem a more neutral flag icon for Northern Ireland when used on articles of people from NI.

I know it's been a few month but I'd be very interested to hear input regard this potential flag icon change? BBX118 15:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)BBX118 bbx118


 * Attractive though it is, the flag of the Northern Ireland Assembly only represents the Assembly, not Northern Ireland itself. I think the only responsible thing to do is to have a flag-sized transparent rectangle where a flag would otherwise be. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That, or ... didn't we decided back when to use the Union Jack, since technically it's the only national flag that pertains?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think we did, at least not with respect to &#123;&#123;NIR&#125;&#125;. The Union Jack may be a national flag, but it's not the national flag of Northern Ireland as such. All of this is very politically sensitive and divisive, which is why Northern Ireland doesn't really have a flag currently. Now that I look back, there was some edit warring about the Union Jack in 2007, but obviously no consensus. Q·L·1968 ☿ 01:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm probably thinking of one of that series of discussions, though more likely a later one at WT:MOSICONS rather than the 2007 one here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support Q.L's idea of a flag-sized transparent rectangle when using the flag icon NIR, until such time as the NI authority decides on a representative flag. I've seen various flags used for NI (St. Patrick's saltire, Ulster Banner, current NI Assembly flag, the Ulster provincial flag etc.) Until such time as the NI government uses an accepted flag, it makes sense to go with the transparent rectangle.


 * BBX118 15:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)BBX118 bbx118

The Northern Ireland Assembly flag represents just the institution. I've never seen that used for another purpose, so I don't think that would necessarily work. A transparent flag icon would of course be the most sensible option for as long as NI doesn't have its own emblem or flag. If other users insisted on a flag, I would be open to the Union Flag being used for that purpose. I've never seen a flag used for the NI Executive so that wouldn't be the equivalent of the Ulster Banner used by the Northern Ireland Government until 1972. st 170  e  11:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Nationality/Citizenship - from Northern Ireland
I'm seeing more and more fighting over people from Northern Ireland regarding their nationality and "personage". For example there's a lot of edit warring over someone is Irish because they were born in Northern Ireland, no someone is British because they're born in Northern Ireland and they need to voluntarily obtain Irish citizenship, etc. For years some of us have been supporting the format of "X is a sportsperson from Northern Ireland" rather than "X is an Irish sportsperson", "X is a British sportsperson." I think this is going on so much that we need to codify this into the IMOS. I'd propose that we should describe someone solely as being "from Northern Ireland" unless we have a strong source that states they are British or Irish. Everything else is assumption, original research and person interpretation of various nationality laws/citizenships/parentage etc. Thoughts? 14:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Damned fine idea. Also consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF and the spirit of MOS:IDENTITY (which no longer covers national stuff, just gender identity; for more on that, see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. The passage in question would be a good place to include this as an example, too, perhaps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ireland or Republic of Ireland?
I think that the Irish Constitution takes presidence over what others write in Wikipedia.

Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland, adopted in 1937, provides that the name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland. Hence, the Irish state has two official names, Éire (in Irish) and Ireland (in English). For official purposes, including in international treaties and other legal documents, and where the language of the documents is English, the Irish government uses the name Ireland. The same is true in respect of the name Éire for documents written in Irish. Similarly, the name of the state is reflected in its institutions and public offices. For example, there is a President of Ireland and a Constitution of Ireland. The name Ireland is also used in the state's diplomatic relations with foreign nations and at meetings of the United Nations, European Union,Council of Europe, International Monetary Fund, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Nublue2 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death. I think you may have about 10 years' worth of talk-page archives to catch up on. You can find them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration - that page itself, then the archive box at the top of the page. Regards, <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would just add that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Constitutions, statutes, treaties or anything else do not take precedence over anything, particularly not over consensus. If "Republic of Ireland" or "the Republic" is a term that is commonly used in reliable, published sources – and it is – then it can be used in certain circumstances in certain articles where there is a consensus to do so – and there is a consensus to use both in the articles that you tried to change. The current Irish Manual of Style reflects that consensus. Scolaire (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The term "Republic" is used almost exclusively by BBC, and residents of both Britain and Northern Ireland.
 * Those living in Ireland and Northern Ireland use the appropiate term for their relevant countries.
 * Should we refer to Italy as Republic of Italy, France as Republic of France, Romania as Republic of Romania?
 * I think not!
 * Ireland is known as Ireland. Nublue2 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * We've all heard the arguments. We know them off by heart. You are bringing nothing new to the table. I appreciate your concern, but still, after seventeen years of constantly revisiting the topic, there is no appetite for overturning the current guidelines. We use "Ireland" when we can, which is nearly all the time, and "Republic of Ireland" or "the Republic" in certain circumstances when it is deemed appropriate. Scolaire (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiProjects
User:SeoR, about this: Can you give me a link to the ArbCom resolution that requires a link to that specific group of people? I'm mostly curious how long ago it was. AFAICT WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is not active. I don't think there is any utility in sending people to a page that nobody seems to be using and that only 26 active editors are watching (compared to, say, 626 editors at the Village Pump proposals or even 37 active editors at WikiProject Ireland). This is the kind of specific detail that might have made sense at the time ago, but which doesn't necessarily make sense forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I will try to locate it. I have something in my Wiki notes file, dating from a period when I limited editing, partly to avoid the Ireland naming dispute:


 * Arbcom says: Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:


 * Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.


 * Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.


 * On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will revert after digging a bit.SeoR (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, by the by, that that mini-project is somewhat resting. Some editors have moved on altogether, some internally, but as I understand, it did help get past a difficult circle of discussions. The idea was to avoid bogging down WP:Ireland, WP:Northern Ireland and others, and to end editor time loss, and even resignation.SeoR (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in the first paragraph is misleading. I didn't notice until 's edit highlighted it. The Arbcom ruling is here. The motion adopted (i.e. the ruling) is, "Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" (emphasis added). It does not state that "contentious issues" around "Ireland–Republic of Ireland" must be discussed there, and it has no effect whatever on issues around "Derry–Londonderry". The WikiProject Ireland Collaboration page is, as you both say, completely inactive. The WikiProject Ireland Collaboration talk page springs to life whenever some newbie proposes moving the Republic of Ireland page, then goes dead again, usually after a couple of days. Discussions on moving the Derry page invariably occur at Talk:Derry. The sentence should be edited to reflect the actual situation, though IMO simply saying "Major changes relating to contentious issues...should be discussed" is stating the obvious. Scolaire (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've linked to the ArbCom case and repeated its language. I've added another link in the more relevant section.
 * That's what we "should" do, according to a decade-old decision. Now the question is whether that's what we should do, at this point in time, given the likelihood that the WikiProject is "resting", is a different question.  We could ask ArbCom to change the decision, either to point to a different place (like WP:VPPR) or to remove it (any normal page-move procedure is okay).  Alternatively, we could beg more editors to watch that page.  I'm slightly inclined to suggest the ArbCom amendment, but I cheerfully defer to other editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am no expert, but I'd either leave it as is, or route it back to ArbCom - we *really* don't need to rehash the underlying matter any more. There is no perfect answer, we all know that well (and all who've been involved, could recite the relevant legal provisions, etc.) and yet what we have works well enough. I would *not* favour just letting it go to the normal process, and I think the routing to the special page may actually still be the best answer, as people can rally round there if needed, as they do.SeoR (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If we will continue to need people to "rally round there", then we should be advertising its existence and purpose. Otherwise, the only people who show up will be the people who are already involved in the particular dispute.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm undoing your second edit. The sidebox suggests that editors should go to IECOLL for useful advice on place names like Rosmuc, Drogheda, Dungannon or Derry. That's not the case: only the titles of the specific island, state and disambiguation articles are meant to be discussed there. I'm also editing the lead again, for more clarity. Scolaire (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that IECOLL is "resting" is a red herring. The project itself was intended to be something completely different; it never got off the ground, and was in early 2009. The project page never has anything substantive added to it. The talk page, meanwhile, has only ever existed as a kind of sandbox for the well-known arguments to be recycled at intervals. The procedure is always the same: somebody posts on Talk:Ireland or Talk:Republic of Ireland that the name is "wrong", somebody points out that such discussions must take place at IECOLL, and the thread is moved there, where people can let off steam for a few days. Having said that, it only happens a couple of times a year now, compared with every couple of weeks back in 2008. Perhaps it would be worth going back to Arbcom and asking them to lift the requirement; it was intended to curb disruptive editing on multiple pages, which isn't a problem now.  Scolaire (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever you all think is best is okay with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of Taoiseach
I assume nobody, other than (who is going on a spree changing it) has a problem with the use of Taoiseach instead of prime minister? FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's valid Irish English Wikt:Taoiseach and probably should not be changed. While roughly equivalent to a prime minister I am far from convinced it is exactly equivalent to a prime minister.  And while I personally would was say for example the late Albert Reynolds was once the Taoiseach I would not say Albert Reynolds was the prime minister of Ireland, even if the page was not "Irish English" (actually I understand from heresay it is listed in an edition of the Oxford English Dictionary).  Use of "head of state" is probably correct as a generic at a guess.  But overall I'd expect Taoiseach to be used and I think I've argued myself in saying "prime minister" is incorrect. 11:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No argument here, it is in common usage. Where Uachtarán (President) is not, for our Head of State - we say “President.” Notably Taoiseach is only used for the Irish Head of Government, we use “príomh-aire” for those of other countries. All that said, the Taoiseach is Prime Minister, in functional terms. But Taoiseach is the actual term used in Ireland. SeoR (talk)

An assertion was made that "No one outside of Ireland knows what taoiseach means". Many international media outlets disagree, including Australia's 7 News who repeatedly describe Varadkar as Taoiseach while repeatedly describing Boris Johnson as prime minister. For the benefit of people who don't know what Taoiseach means, I would suggest that's the very reason on every instance changed a link to the Taoiseach article was already provided so people can learn something. FDW777 (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well Taoiseach is the English version of the title, as well as the Irish, so Taoiseach it is. Understood outside the country or not is actually irrelevant in this case as that is the official English naming of the office. If it didn't have an English language naming then I'd think about translating it as Prime Minister, but this is actually the English language name for it. It's not like Ireland is a country that doesn't have English as an official language, it's not France, Somalia or Russia where we have to translate the title into an English equivalent. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * That was basically my reason for reverting the changes to begin with it's Taoiseach in English. Unlike Uachtarán, as points out, which isn't in common usage in English, Taoiseach is very much a, if not the, commonly used term in English. FDW777 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This comes up every 5 or 6 years (in different guises). I've as yet to see any evidence or consensus that the longstanding convention needs to be changed. That convention being that, as Taoiseach is the commonly-used term in the English language, it is the commonly-used term on the English language Wikipedia. Without a "translation" or qualification or whatever EASTEREGG-like solution seems to have been unilaterally "warred" into existence here. Certainly not in primarily Ireland-related articles.
 * Even if we ignore long-standing convention and previous consensus discussions on Wikipedia, and look at the convention outside the project, is clear that news outlets in Ireland and in the UK use the term Taoiseach without feeling the need to add a qualifier or translation or explanation. (Including in the Financial Times (UK) or BBC (UK) or whatever.) Some Aussie and north-American news outlets do sometimes feel the need to supplement the term with a qualifier for the unfamiliar reader (like CBC (CA) or NY Times (US)). But they still use the term Taoiseach. And rely purely on subsequent-mention type qualifiers (like "Irish premier" or "Irish prime minister" or similar) to ensure clarity for the reader.
 * While a similar approach might sometimes be appropriate on the EN Wikipedia (as we have for example in the Canada–Ireland relations article), where the reader might perhaps be less familiar with the term and need a qualifier, there is zero reason to imagine that reader of the Battle of the Bogside article needs to have the term "hidden" from them. And spoon-fed back in the form of some inappropriate EASTEREGG. As seems to have been proposed.
 * In short, I don't see any reason to change the long-standing convention. Certainly not in primarily Ireland-related articles. And, in other types of articles, while a simple subsequent-mention qualifier might sometimes be appropriate, an WP:EASTEREGG style solution probably isn't. (In the same way, I might add, that warring or reversion without discussion generally isn't appropriate).
 * TLDR version: No reason or consensus to change longstanding convention. Not in primarily Ireland-related articles anyway. Guliolopez (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All seems very sensible to me. As our readers can either navigate directly to the Taoiseach article or hover to bring up a thumbnail preview, there's no real need to follow the lead of some foreign media outlets. FDW777 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Northern Ireland and infoboxes
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style relating to the above. FDW777 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Irish people not being allowed their own names?
The idea of changing "Irish Language Names" is totally outdated, names are not "Irish Language Names" they're people's NAMES. If people can learn to pronounce fantasy names they can cope with Irish names. People are using this style guide as a citation to change Gráinne to "Grace"?? We should change this style guide. 2.25.206.190 (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC) Faye


 * I presume you're referring to the discussion at Talk:Grace O'Malley. This Manual of style does not say anything about "changing" people's names, or about what names they are "allowed". There's no need to change it. Scolaire (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they are referring to Art Mac Cumhaigh or Tadhg Gaelach Ó Súilleabháin or Peadar Ó Doirnín or countless other similar undiscussed moves. FDW777 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, those have all been moved to "English-language" titles in the last couple of days, whereas Grace O'Malley was so titled, and the drive to move it to Gráinne Ni Mháille is only in the last couple of days. The discussion I linked to is the one that 2.25.206.190 ("Faye") was involved in. Scolaire (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built upon the principle of following what the best sources say. The guidance here says that if modern quality sources prefer the Gaeilge form, then so should we; whereas if those sources favour an anglicised form, we should do likewise. We'd be crazy to change that advice. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built upon the principle of following what the best sources say. The guidance here says that if modern quality sources prefer the Gaeilge form, then so should we; whereas if those sources favour an anglicised form, we should do likewise. We'd be crazy to change that advice. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Personally I'm not sure what the anon contributor is talking about, or what kind of a crusade is on, but unilaterally engaging in "bulk moves" (with consideration ONLY to WP:UE and no consideration to WP:COMMONNAME or WP:IMOS) is misguided at best. WP:COMMONNAME remains *the* fundamental principle which decides what the title of an article should be. WP:UE is not a replacement for (or an overrider of) WP:COMMONNAME. It just isn't. NO SOURCES confirm that Peter O'Dornan is the subject's commonname in the English language. A Google search for "Peter O'Dornan" returns just the Wikipedia article. And a half-dozen others. While "Peadar Ó Doirnín" returns upwards of 8000 results. Almost all of which are in English. And which confirm that Peadar Ó Doirnín was and is the appropriate title to use here. In fact, it would seem pretty clear that the former (Peter O'Dornan) is a neoligism and the latter the COMMONNAME. Wikipedia should not be using terms that the sources do not reflect. Certainly not for titles. And this should not be news to a longstanding editor. Guliolopez (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Gráinne v Grace was at least a topic that appeared on Twitter recently. I would prefer she was Gráinne but I wasn't going to start a war about it. But she didn't speak English so it does seem odd to have Grace used...<em style="font-family: Kristen ITC; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think the discussion on Grace O'Malley v Gráinne Mhaol v Granuaile should occur (and remain) in the relevant move discussion. Unless or until there is an outcome there (that would suggest that there is a problem with WP:IMOS that needs addressing) then this is just a confusing fork. That being said, the issues highlighted (by relative to other activities) may need discussion somewhere. Either on the relevant user's talkpage. Or WT:IWNB. Or somewhere. But, while I'm not sure what's going on there. At least a chunk of it seems to be misguided. Frankly speaking. Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know I suck at such discussions though I would rather she had her own name, it was in use in her time until much later and now it's being hijacked by people (not here) who like the romance of the story but have no real interest in the truth of it.<em style="font-family: Kristen ITC; color:red">  &#9749;  Antiqueight  chatter 22:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of Northern Ireland's ceremonial counties in articles?
We currently have a rather slow-moving human bot adding ceremonial counties to biographical, and other, articles, just wondered if there was any guidance of this? FDW777 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If they are there I leave them, however if they're not there I won't add them going forward. Happy to have them as grandfathered. Thing is the counties were historically very important, and are still used for addresses and postal if not government purposes. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So it appears there is no consensus for the ongoing mass addition? FDW777 (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No consensus against it either. I can see reasons to add them. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 01:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it makes sense to keep them just for ease of recognition. County Londonderry and County Antrim for example are much more easily recognisable than "Causeway Coast and Glens District" I'd say.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I note that apparently needs consensus to remove a ceremonial county, while  was never told they need consensus for their mass additions. Curious... FDW777 (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not assuming good faith and is a bit of a combative tone. I suggested obtaining consensus one way or another due to the sensitive nature of the topic and thing we, as a community, should have a discussion about it. County names are pretty standard across Wikipedia for towns for all countries, not just the UK, so I think this has now reached the point where we should have a larger talk about it instead of people adding/deleting etc over it before anything gets out of hand one way or another. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . I discussed this on my Talk page briefly with User:Canterbury Tail and will take up the conversation here. One of my original edits to revert someone who removed User:Alekksandr's edit adding County Londonderry was reverted once more by an Admin stating it is not standard to name county, just town/city, unless disambiguation is needed. I agree with them and don't think the county adds anything that the city doesn't already tell the reader. Of the handful of cities in Northern Ireland no other one has county when it is mentioned. (That might be partly due to mos of the cities bordering two counties, but I think it is still valid). I've stopped editing for the moment until there is a consensus reached here. ~ Ablaze (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Giant Snowman there and believe it is fairly standard to name the county for a town/city across the entirety of Wikipedia, except for large cities that everyone knows about. Most town/city articles on the project are placed in their more local geography before they're placed in their country. As far as I can tell, this is normal. US puts cities in their counties, states and then country. Everywhere else does similar. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 13:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Giant Snowman?? Did you mean Darranc/Ablaze? Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it was GiantSnowman with this edit.
 * Thanks for that. diffs always help. Scolaire (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a look at some notable inhabitants of a few smaller towns in Northern Ireland and they were all widely inconsistent in their infoboxs. Some having the county and some just Town, Northern Ireland. I think however that Derry and Belfast fall into the large city category and the county is not needed. I don't agree that it is normal everywhere globally to have county/province/administrative regions after the city. It has to be taken on a country by country basis ~ Ablaze (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to not deliberately add, but also not deliberately remove, the counties from existing articles. I don't see the purpose of a campaign to do it either direction. So that would mean don't expand the ones already there to include counties, but also don't delete counties from existing articles. Not much of a policy or plan I know, but status quo. I do find it very unfortunate though that this seems to be concentrated on County Londonderry, not the other counties. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 14:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

To answer the original question – if there was any guidance of this? – the use of counties in Ireland-related articles has been the convention as long as there have been Ireland-related articles, and that applies to the six counties of Northern Ireland as much as the other 26. Note the use of County Antrim as an example in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 11 from 2010, and see also the thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 11 from the same year, and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/CatNavProposal in 2018, which led to the creation of CatNavs at, for instance, Category:County Antrim, Category:People from County Antrim, Category:Geography of County Antrim, Category:Islands of County Antrim and Category:Rugby union clubs in County Antrim. You might expect any article in those categories to have "County Antrim" in it. Since nobody in this discussion has provided diffs, I cannot comment on the specific edits involved, but in general terms I would be inclined to leave counties in if they were added, and revert if they were removed from articles where they had been for some time. I would also agree with Ablaze that they're not necessary for Belfast (which straddles two counties) or Derry. Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is a small sample of the edits which prompted my question. FDW777 (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for that. I would definitely disagree with changing "Derry" to "Derry, County Londonderry". It's simply not needed. It's as pointless as "Dublin, County Dublin" or "Galway, County Galway". It's a pity that diffs weren't provided in the beginning; it would have made the discussion much more focussed. Scolaire (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why we shouldn't add a line to the Referring to counties section to say something like When referring to a city, do not follow it with a county, e.g. "Belfast", not "Belfast, County Antrim" or "Belfast, County Down". Scolaire (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had hoped to avoid any partisan bickering by naming the specific county, hoping it could be approached more easily in general terms. I have no problem with your proposed addition. FDW777 (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with that. As long as we don't get into some edit warring over what is a city, though I think for UK that's actually pretty well defined (unlike a lot of countries.) <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insights Scolaire and I agree with your proposal. I'll remove the rule/check from my AWB and we will leave all the articles as is. ~ Ablaze (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'd prefer When referring to a city, do not follow it with a county, e.g. "Belfast", not "Belfast, County Antrim" or "Belfast, County Down". Similarly do not follow a town with an eponymous county, e.g. "Sligo", not "Sligo, County Sligo", or something that includes eponymous counties. I did think including it in the "city" part, but couldn't word it well enough. Perhaps others can do better? FDW777 (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about towns. In fairness most NI and Ireland towns aren’t that well known so the additional locational identifier is very helpful. Remember while most of us involved in this conversation are fairly conversant with where things are, the majority of the world is not. We’re not writing for ourselves but for those who are not aware. And the counties of Ireland in general have and have had great importance, so we can’t just throw them aside. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 11:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all towns, only eponymous towns. As Scolaire said, It's as pointless as "Dublin, County Dublin" or "Galway, County Galway". If Galway, County Galway is pointless surely the same applies to Sligo, Antrim etc even though they are towns not cities? FDW777 (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah gotcha. Yeah fair enough that makes a lot of sense. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . --Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that was an easy and amicable result. Some others may wish to chime in later as they see it as there hasn't been that many participants so far, but everything seems reasonable and non-controversial. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 12:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry - historic contexts
I'm wondering what the policy is for Derry/Londonderry re historic contexts, 19th century in this case. Just expanded a bio article on someone born in 1877 and gave their birthplace (per article sources) as "Londonderry, Ireland" in infobox and "Londonderry, present-day Northern Ireland" in prose for context. This was changed to "Derry, Ireland" in both cases. I would have thought it if the policy is to use the contemporary name, it has to be either "Londonderry, Ireland" or "Derry, Northern Ireland", not a mix and match. Or is the policy to use "Derry" in all contexts no matter the time frame? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think if you go by the letter of the policy, there is no alterations depending on date for the city except for if its the name of a place/organisation at that time.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 14:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. I'd always put it as Derry, regardless of the timeframe. Only exceptions are if it's part of a proper name such as Londonderry Port etc. And I'd also argue against lines like "modern day Northern Ireland", I don't see the help of trying to couch it in modern terms for historical contexts. Every country used to be called somewhere else and it just clutters the articles. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 15:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As alludes to, countries not only used to be called somewhere else but due to changing borders quite often they were somewhere else entirely. So I believe the two issues are slightly different. I can only imagine the backlash if, should Irish reunification occur, we started to refer to everyone's birthplace as simply Ireland and not Northern Ireland since "that's where it is now". I feel the only sensible way to deal with shifting borders is to use the country/state/whatever where the person was born, not where that location is now. FDW777 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Nationality of John Hume
Discussion here of what best suits. Please input. Also there probably should be a more detailed/ explained for the lay person MOS:IMOS BIOPLACE, but one fjord at a time. TIA Arnkellow (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is probably a better place for the discussion to take place, since it involves much wider issues than just that article. The current argument appears to be that people can be described as British or Northern Irish without any problem, but people aren't allowed to be called Irish. Even if they are verifiably Irish. Or they can be described as Irish, providing they are called British too. FDW777 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DERRY
There is a discussion at Talk:County Londonderry proposing to move the county to County Derry which would go against the longstanding rule on Wikipedia.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Addition of consensus about capitalization of "deputy" in deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland
Could the following consensus, from 2016 at Talk:Martin McGuinness/Archive 2, be added to the MoS:
 * The word "deputy" in the title "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" should not be capitalized, unless "deputy" is the first word of a sentence e.g. Martin McGuinness was deputy First Minister from 2007 to 2017, not Martin McGuinness was Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland from 2007 to 2017. Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness met Barack Obama in 2009, however, is correct. deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness met Barack Obama in 2009 is incorrect.

I'm asking this because, despite not often editing articles about Northern Irish politics, I frequently find myself correcting other editors who start sentences with a lower case "d", so it may be worth adding the consensus to perhaps a less obscure page. I will notify WP:NIR of this discussion.-- T<small style="font-size:60%;">ed E<small style="font-size:60%;">dwards  17:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)