Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games/Archive 2020

Irish Guards GAA
OK I have casually edited on here in bits for a few weeks, lockdown. I am beginning to get to understand some things. I made edits to the Irish Guards GAA page, including, correct me if I'm wrong, overlink, bolding for names- its know as Naomh Padraig https://www.facebook.com/irishguards1900/posts/1421780801284673/, removed information that wasn't fully explained- the players were from Republic of Ireland and Northern Irealnd- yet the article mentions English as well and tagged the racist nickname- the Micks which the unit is known as in the British Army, but no source given for the GAA team. I was all undone. Have I followed what I'm meant to do? Did I overstep? The last time the editor left me a note and was very helpful. TIA 80.233.49.202 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Arnkellow (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. As the reverting editor, ideally would explain the reason for the revert. Typically this is done in an edit summary. Which doesn't seem to have been the case. So, personally, I cannot speak for the rationale.
 * In terms of the infobox change (requesting a reference for the nickname) and the redundancy fix (removing the uplicated "founded in 2015"), neither seemed unreasonable to me. I, personally, wouldn't have reverted. But cannot speak for other editors.
 * In terms of the bolding change (which was uncited and unexplained) and the other content change (removing the cited text about players from counties north and south), neither seemed entirely justified to me. I, personally, can see why those might've been reverted.
 * Frankly this seems like something that is best addressed with the involved editors directly. On the article talk page or a user talkpage. And probably doesn't require "escalation" to uninvolved project contributors. If it were me, I'd simply raise on the editor or article talkpage. Which you can do yourself. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was just trying to figure out what I had done wrong. Last time I was undone it was similar, I removed stuff some of which should have been most of which should not have been. I might get the hang of this at some stage. Thanks for explaining where I went wrong. 80.233.49.202 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Arnkellow (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

"Splitting" county articles by code?
seems to be undertaking a significant body of work to "split" the county-level GAA articles. Such that, for example, a significant chunk of football-related text has been removed from the Donegal GAA article. And reuploaded to sit as a separate article on the Donegal football team. Notwithstanding the fact that these (multiple) actions have not followed the project guidelines on performing a split (such that the original/source page is identified for compliance with Wikipedia's licensing requirements and to "credit" the original authors/editors of that split content), I am opening this thread so that can confirm the rationale for the split(s). And other contributors can have some input on how to handle it. If needed. And, how it is now intended to address the deviations from process which have caused licencing and edit history retention issues. Guliolopez (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not class a few articles as a "significant body of work" but I appreciate the compliment. It seems clear to me, and I have stated this on my talk page and in (very detailed) edit summaries (contrary to your claim on my talk page of "absense of an explanatory edit summary or talk page note or similar"), edit summaries that I applied to each case (thus slowing me down further, but then that was not the point, I was - I supposed - ensuring continuity with the original text), that undue weight is being given to certain sports over others. The page you mention is typical of this trend. It is practically a page within a page. As I referenced on my talk page and in the edit summaries you seem to have overlooked, it would be like (to give an example) putting Ireland national rugby union team into the Irish Rugby Football Union, then (supposing it also ran baseball on the side), having Ireland national baseball team as a less popular sport underneath, and with only the few sentences which this last page happens to have.
 * Why is GAA any different to other sports organisations which (often) run only one sport and do not mix the team(s) with their equivalent of a county board? Why should those who want to edit hurling have to make their way through paragraphs and paragraphs of football (and vice versa), when these are separate sports with separate teams?
 * As to not following procedure, where is the evidence of this? Or, if a part has been missed ("deviations?"), that this cannot be solved? Or that I have had the time to do so? This has been done in recent hours. I have not since edited and had not made any claim to have completed each step.
 * "Step 6: Clean up If material is split from an article, consider whether a summary section should be created, and whether a template should be placed at the top of the section to link to the new page". Already done. Well, in part. The link is there but the summary could be improved.
 * "On the talk page of the new and old articles, include the template ". Not (yet) done but then I hadn't finished that either. I had not even had time in recent hours to set up a talk page.
 * The top of the section states be bold, i.e. "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it... In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia". The early steps therefore do not apply if following this approach. But suppose they do? "Notify involved users (optional)" - well, if I read optional as compulsory instead, who then are the involved users? How long would it take to get a response? I ask this even in relation to informing this WikiProject. It seems (at best) to be a semi-active project. The last contribution on this talk page is from nearly half a year ago and the user is replying to their own original comment. The contributors before this have all had their questions unanswered. For months. The archives are even more worrying. The only other response in the past year is yourself to your own question (I am being careless with time as you wrote it in the middle of April). The discussion it leads to is, incredibly, another unanswered question on a separate talk page. So what is the point of taking the "option" to notify involved users, who will vary by county, might not reply and (see below) may not even be around? Incidentally, the user with the highest number of edits since 1 November at the page you mentioned above has not himself (the user has a male name) edited since 28 February.
 * Participants by number include 1. (nine edits this year), 2. and 3. (both haven't edited since 2011), 4. (one edit since 2017), 5. (no edits since June 2007). Even if I went backwards from the latest number: 43. (all edits July 2018), 42. (three edits this year), 41. (June 2014 - only!), and is there any point in continuing to try to find who is actually still around? When I could (to adjust the words slightly) be bold, fix it myself instead of just talking about it... In the time it takes to write about the problem, I could instead improve the encyclopedia? Something I am now not doing. Meaning that the additional instructions are not being completed. Because I am responding to a claim of "deviations from process". These "deviations from process" being related, it seems, to a delayed reaction on my part. Which I am now responding to. Which seems to be more than what everyone else here has been doing in recent years. I apologise if all that sounds tetchy and dismissive, but it is actually frustrating, and going around in circles achieves nothing.
 * I have no objection to it being raised here. I look forward, at least to a third contributor of some kind, as this would seem to be not altogether normal in these parts. --Gaois (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Apologies for delayed response. I didn't get a ping and overlooked your change (in my watchlist) with the archivebot's subsequent change. Sorry. On each point:
 * "Tetchy". Yup. Clearly I annoyed you. Apologies if my writing style caused any frustration or annoyance. That obviously wasn't the intent. I know I need to watch that. Sorry.
 * "No point opening a thread on dormant project". Perhaps its a difference in styles. But I always err on the side of opening a thread. As you note, even if that means I'm just talking to myself for a few days before I take action, I always err on the side of WP:CON over WP:BRD. In particular for changes which are hard to undo or have implications across multiple articles.
 * "Clear and detailed edit summaries". In honesty, and per the note added by at least one other editor on your talkpage, I'm not sure things were 100% clear. Certainly I and the other editor didn't understand what was going on. Or why.
 * "PROSPLIT and giving credit". I see that you've now started to update the relevant article talkpages to add the  . Thanks for that. That will help a lot.
 * "Input from third contributor of some kind". Indeed. It seems a bit quiet around here at times. Am sometimes deafened by the sound of crickets myself. Perhaps that's why I talk to myself so much :)
 * Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. My apologies for the above. It looks even worse to me now than when I typed it. My thinking at the time was that, in the choice between replying soon and replying later, that I'd better reply soon due to the apparent seriousness of the situation. That didn't work out as well as I would have liked.

Once I completed the missing parts, I left the subject aside for a week to encourage and allow for responses here. I have not done anything with any additional counties. This can be seen in the edit history.

You are correct about the edit summaries. I see that now. The intention was to explain clearly what was going on, while putting a lot of detail into each one (more than it seemed was required by the guidelines). But two different editors, including yourself (and you have been active here for a while), didn't understand them. So they didn't work as intended either. Too much detail I suppose.

I wonder if you could check for any unsorted issues with any of the five articles regarding the guidelines you mention above. That would be much appreciated. I will then complete them if necessary. I think I have followed the guidelines but then I wouldn't like to assume I've not missed anything. :) Thanks. --Gaois (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, I wonder if the archives at the top should include recent years? They stop at 2013. It is not clear why they do this. --Gaois (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Acquiring nationality by the summer
Following suggestions by Guliolopez on ethnicity and nationality, and on examination of the categories, I have removed the London/New York Gaelic footballers categories from the American/English Gaelic footballers categories.

It seems to me that most of the players visit these countries for the summer and often return home again. I don't see how they all then become American or English? --Gaois (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Club players not necessarily "from" a town
There seems to be a common practice of including club player categories in "People from town" categories. But the players are not always from there, so this is confusing. As an example, Category:Sportspeople from Dublin (city) currently has Category:Na Fianna Gaelic footballers. As far as I am aware, Kieran McGeeney and Enda McNulty are not even from Leinster. Category:People from Tuam has Category:Tuam Stars Gaelic footballers and includes John Nallen from Crossmolina, John Lynch (Roscommon Gaelic footballer) and Johnny Carey from Bangor Erris. Which reminds me, Chris Barrett recently transferred to Clontarf, but is from Belmullet. This is like a more localised version of the nationality problem mentioned above. I propose removing the club player categories from the "people from town" categories (if it can be verified that they are from the town, the players can then be individually added to the "people from town" category). I would be willing to do this later if there are no objections. --Gaois (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the affected categories to the to-do list at the top of this page. --Gaois (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Gaelic footballers who switched code has been nominated for deletion
Category:Gaelic footballers who switched code has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Ladies' Gaelic footballers who switched code has been nominated for deletion
Category:Ladies' Gaelic footballers who switched code has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Footballers who switched code has been nominated for deletion
Category:Footballers who switched code has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)