Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 25

ArbCom - Request for Clarification
I have opened a request for clarification to ArbCom in relation to the naming of Ireland article names. If anyone would like to comment, please do so. Fmph (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I've had a look at the arguments and I'll definitely be voting against any change in those particular article names. Editors can propose changes if you want to when the time comes up but I view it as a waste of time and effort. It can all then be done again and again for all I care but if it is done too frequently I'll propose the nominators be topic banned for disruption. That's basically all ArbCom did about it. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dmcq's sentiments on the issue. Mabuska (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though you haven't heard the arguments yet? You weren't around last time, I think you said. Have you managed to read the entire archive of arguments then? And besides, the request for clarification was not about changing articles names. It is about the process of what happens on 18th September. Fmph (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't need to read the entire archives to formulate an opinion on what i think is best, and for me it's the status quo. Mabuska (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And is the status quo to have a discussion or not to have a discussion, in your opinion? Because as far as I can see there is no status quo on whether to have a discussion or not. Fmph (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever is decided, it must be about clarity for people looking at wikipedia from outside Europe, and not based on our convoluted histories. The history pages can be linked. What clarification is being requested? The date or the name? Can we avoid being listed on the Lamest edit wars please.Red Hurley (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't go giving us targets like that. Fmph (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I remember it last time the vote was put in place after a long and repetitious discussion and was formulated by editors who had already taken part in that discussion without full agreement to the wording. Worse, there were signs that an agreement was emerging but the refusal by one now banned sock master prevented that moving forward. I'd suggest that this time we focus for a short period of time on agreeing the formal statement of both sides - and have admin mediated discussion but not repetition. Those statements could then be opened for wider comment and if a solution is not evident then a series of propositions put to the vote with the wording and management handled by neutrals. Whatever there needs to be a structured discussion fro the 18th, otherwise the normal mess will ensue-- Snowded TALK  10:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The only hope of a civilised discussion when the day comes is if we develop a collaborative approach at this stage of the proceedings. This will not be helped by bitter recollections of what "they" did last time and dark references to "banned sock masters". Everybody blamed somebody different for what happened last time, and nobody was entirely blameless (I had at least one moment that still makes me cringe). This time, let's try to take a positive approach to working out a structure for discussions. Scolaire (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion. Lets leave all the baggage at the door. Fmph (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like a battered housewife and her husband saying they love each other and have turned over a new leaf. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No idea what that means! I sense sarcasm but will assume good faith. As regards Snowded's actual suggestions, I'm not certain if the suggestion is for participants to collaborate on a single statement giving pros and cons of each option, like this one by RA, or for each participant to prepare their own statement, like this page from February 2009. Either way I think it should be self-regulated. Regulation by "neutral" admins sounds great in theory but doesn't work well in practice. For one thing, the only genuinely neutral person is someone who doesn't know anything about the subject, which is a big negative as far as directing discussion is concerned; for another, as soon as the "neutral" admin says anything that somebody doesn't like, he or she will be accused of bias anyway. I do think there will be a need for ArbCom involvement, but it needn't be, and I don't think it will be, at the level of directing discussion. Scolaire (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sarcasm, cynicism. I have no doubt about their good intentions. Dmcq (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And your intentions? To move this discussion forward in a positive atmosphere? Scolaire (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If only we could persuade the country-in-question to change its name. In the meantime, hopefully things will be less volatile, after September 18, 2011. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I know it has been suggested before but I also like to support an "advance plan" for how we are going to handle discussion post the 18th. Simply as a brain drump of possible appraches may I chip in with:
 * Do nothing and request a pause for another 2 years (on the basis that nothing material has changed, not on the basis that consensus can't change)
 * Have a time-limited discussion, after which we either reach consensus or walk away and request a pause of another 12 months
 * Have a time-limited discussion followed by another vote, after which we are bound for another period of two years
 * Also, can I clarity: we have consensus on how to handle Ireland/Republic of Ireland in articles (as described in the WP:IMOS) and we are now only interested in the page move question of Ireland and Republic of Ireland. I would suggest we limit discussion only to the areas we don't have consensus on so that we can keep things focused (and thus possibly reach a conclusion). --RA (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with 1, 2 and 3 above however I reject utterly the idea that WP:IMOS can't change or that discussion, at least initially, should be somehow limited/restricted. The idea that some discussions might be disruptive (as has been suggested elsewhere) is nonsense. Those that discussed these issues last time do not have an infinite wisdom on what is good or right. Lets just discuss how to move forward and improve th pedia. Fmph (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that we wouldn't discuss the MOS in order to restrict discussion, but I'm just wondering if people want to discuss it? Are people happy with that current arrangement? If people are then we can simply focus on the article names issue. If people aren't, or just want it as part of the discussion, then we should plan for that too.
 * I also don't think discussion will be disruptive but we all know it has potential to be draining, both physically and to the morale of WikiProject Ireland. --RA (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What you're suggesting works for me, RA. I don't think the question of Ireland/Republic of Ireland usage within articles is controversial?  The current IMOS-mandated compromise seems to be working fine. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the IMOS has come under increasing pressure recently by a small group of editors opposed to the use of Ireland in relation to the state. Fmph (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If the question is going to be re-opened, then the whole question - in-article use as well as article name - should be up for discussion. I propose a synthesis of Fmph's, Snowded's and RA's suggestions and my own qualifications: Scolaire (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A self-regulated, time limited discussion (say 6 weeks), starting on 18 September
 * Formal statements by participants with no responses, and no repitition
 * At the end of the period ArbCom, or a moderator nominated by ArbCom, to decide
 * to start another ballot
 * to extend the moratorium on discussions/moves, or
 * to extend the ongoing discussions for a specified period of time


 * Sounds good. And let's all enter with good faith. Consensus can change, etc.
 * Meanwhile, no page move requests, no changes to the MOS, etc. --RA (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Happy to work with that as a starting point, but I think we need some variations and we also need to be realistic. Last time we were very close to an agreement on Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) and only one editor prevented it.  When we had the ballot we went in to it with the facts still disputed and the way they were presented deeply opposed by several experienced editors.  My suggestion above was that both groups agree two statements, the case for using the name of the state and another group agree the case against.  Those can be challenged for facts.  That means that when other editors become involved they can read two statements without added opinions etc.  However I would hope that we might avoid that.   I don't want to drag up the last debate again, but I do want to learn from it so we don't of through the same saga all over again.


 * So my suggested modification to Scolaire would be as follows -
 * Firstly, we have a period where editors opt into one of two groups via two working pages.  One is to create arguments for a move, the other against.  Their task over say two weeks is to produce an agreed summary within a limited number of words.
 * Secondly, nominees from both groups agreed by those groups (we really can't have everyone diving into this) spend a couple of weeks working through alternatives/compromises that might satisfy a majority of editors on both sides and lay them out with a rationale
 * Thirdly we open discussion on the compromises and see if we can at least get them to one or two options that most people can live with, or ranked or maybe one that is agreed. If possible we want to avoid a position where every two years one side wins or another looses.  That discussion needs a senior admin or two as mediator
 * Fourthly if all that fails we all stop and hand over the material to some neutrals appointed by Arbcom who then produce and run a ballot. Our discussion is over
 * -- Snowded TALK  06:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You see, I have a problem with the assertion that we were very close to an agreement and only one editor prevented it. The last attempt at an agreement that I can see before the poll began is this discussion begun by Masem on 18 June 2009. The vote was eight support and eight oppose, and Masem's conclusion was, "I will consider that any chance of consensus happening to be beyond measure." That's pretty definitive, I think. If there was an outbreak of love and understanding sometime in the following month that I missed, can you link to it please, and also reveal who this mysterious "one person" was?
 * I think your proposal is over-elaborate. First, do you really believe that all the people on each side can agree a draft in two weeks? I don't, and I don't think they could agree a draft in two months. We're not talking cabals here, we're talking about very disparate groups of people, who are sometimes at daggers drawn on other discussions. Second, there is no reason to assume there will only be two sides: those who want to change article names are not by any means united in what they want them changed to. Third, if there should be a compromise it will either be a familiar one - which we won't need the Mitchell Report to arrive at - or a completely new one that will arise in an individual proposal, not a committee draft. And most importantly, we don't know that the discussion is going to be a carbon copy of the one two years ago (if we did we could skip the discussion phase altogether and cut to the chase), so it makes no sense, to me at least, to put it in a strait-jacket before the issues have even been stated. By all means, let us do everything we can to avoid it getting messy. But I would be fearful that this proposal would create more problems than it would solve. Scolaire (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with Scolaire on this. I don't think the argument is around should there be a move or not. To me that's an irrelevance. The issue is around the favoured destinations. And I've just realised we are straying off process and onto specifics now. I like Scolaire's crystallisation of the 3 proposals above. If the substantive discussions wished to go down Snowded's route then it could be adopted in due course. But it is obvious that ArbCom would prefer the community to solve this themselves. They are in watching mode only. So the solution needs to come from us. Fmph (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What about starting off with a community-wide RfC vote on a simple point "Should the ArbCom binding resolution on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles be extended for a further 2 years ?" lets see if there is community support for the waste of time that will likely follow if this is re-visited. Mt  king  (edits)  08:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you've already made up your mind that it would be a waste of time why are you getting involved? Can't you give give it a chance? If we are going to RFC the wubject matter needs to be much wider than that. Fmph (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Without a different process it will go the same way as last time, it will be messy and we will see a series of moves to dismiss the issue and extend the ban; the status quo is after all a victory for one side. You can already see that happening.   Last time we didn't get a proper statement of the facts and we won't with two groups in fundamental disagreement.  Hence my suggestion that the two sides do not engage in the same mess as last year, but that each side draw up a statement then seek through nominees to outline the possible compromises.  My proposal may not be the best structure, but without a structure we will just have a repeat of last time.  Bare statements and a poll (Scolaire's proposal) will just harden positions.   -- Snowded  TALK  14:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowded, nothing is going to harden positions. Positions are as hard now as they were two years ago, three years ago and eight years ago. They haven't gone mushy and they can't be made to go mushy. And what is the feature of your plan that makes it proof against moves to dismiss the issue and extend the ban? Or moves to force a change and enforce a ban? A page move is after all a victory for one side.
 * This is the third time you have said that there wasn't a proper statement of the facts last time; that is unfair and untrue. Last time there was a huge amount of work put in by Evertype (pro-change) and RA (pro-status quo) to make the poll work the very best it could. All editors were not only invited, but urged, to make a proper statement of the facts in advance of the poll. Any failings the poll may have had were not the fault of the people who worked on it but of the people who didn't.
 * Finally, my proposal is not for "bare statements and a poll", and it would be hard work to construe it as that. For a start, a poll is only one of three options. And statements can be as gaudily dressed as you like. If everybody takes the time and trouble to post a carefully-thought-out statement, then there is no reason we can't progress to the next stage - by agreement - at an early date. My proposal has structure; yours just has layers of bureaucracy. Scolaire (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The pipe-link solution used across Wikipedia for the Republic of Ireland, may have taken alot of steam out of the pro-movement side. I believe the pipe-link idea maybe the solution under our noses. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Scolaire, its not "unfair and untrue" several editors were very unhappy with the statements and the speed and the way a poll was forced through. There was an abstentionist movement. That is not to deny the honest endeavor from Evertype and RA. My proposal has three distinct stages and is designed to prevent the multiple threaded repetitious comments of last time.  If you want to characterise that as bureaucratic fine.  It 101 conflict resolution to create structure and stages to prevent hardened attitudes dominating. Its also 101 conflict resolution not to have protagonists in the debate mediating the process and that needs to be the case as a matter of urgency.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll say no more. Your proposal is out there. We'll see if anyone bites. Scolaire (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Snowded's points 2 and 3 are all about one side "compromising", I won't be biting. Compromise is only possible where there's a middle ground.  When one "side" is perfectly happy with the status quo, and "compromise" can only mean a page move sort - I just don't see the point. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bastun's comment makes my point Scolaire. Those who want to per perpetuate a form of words that was the source of much conflict until the Good Friday agreement will act as they did last time. Lots of noise, lots of references to the 1920s and generally creating enough noise that the easiest is to leave things as they are. -- Snowded TALK  09:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty bizarre comment. Care to list where I've done any of that?  My statement, perhaps?  Oh, no, it appears not... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bizarre Bastun, its a reflection of what happened last time and what I suspect will repeat. I've never understood why editors with knowledge of the history can't bring themselves to move on this one.  The world has moved on, wikipedia needs to as well.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The "why" is simple - because on the previous eight (at least) occasions that the question is being put, somewhere approximately between one-half and two-thirds participating editors were either in favour of the status quo or were not swayed by the arguments for a move. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowded, Bastun's comments and your comments make my point. Bastun's position hasn't softened and your position hasn't softened. You still take the position that it is unreasonable and morally questionable for a person to have the same opinions as he or she had before. The bottom line for you is, any editor should only be allowed to take part in the discussion if they agree in advance that it will lead to a page move. Soften that position and I might be more interested in your ideas. Scolaire (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of editors are more than entitled to take part in any discussion Scolaire, and no part of my proposal excludes it. My point is that we need a radical and structured approach to the discussion and a neutral facilitator.  Obfuscation with multiple posts etc. will always favour the status quo as it did last time (although to be fair Bastun was not a major offender).  Clear process, precise statements make the question an open one.  I can't soften a position I don't hold by the way -- Snowded  TALK  13:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Obfuscation, multiple posts, "creating enough noise" - I see one person, and only one, indulging in that here. I'm not going to feed you any more. Goodbye until at least the 18th. Scolaire (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure Scolaire, suggest another editor is taking a position which they clearly aren't, refuse to accept the reality of what happened last time and top it off with a insult or too then exit stage right. I'm very very sorry I didn't immediately accept your proposal as the way forward, but I really do think it will just replicate the mess of the last dispute.  Sorry you are miffed  and all but we need someway forward from the 18th.  My solution may not be it, your's isn't as stated.  Hopefully someone watching from Arbcom will realise the need for a real neutral party or two to get involved before the 18th and create one which is.  -- Snowded  TALK  13:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In aid of being a bit more constructive I will try for skepticism rather than cynicism. Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you in some sort of a competition with GoodDay? ;-) Scolaire (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "I've never understood why editors with knowledge of the history can't bring themselves to move on this one. The world has moved on, wikipedia needs to as well." - The world is constantly moving on, however many things remain the same, and just because the world keeps moving on doesn't mean that everything before it is past and out-dated. Mabuska (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Has the Republic of Ireland Act been repealed? Has the island of Ireland ceased to be called Ireland? Did the Revenue Commissioners not send me an envelope advising me that, "No Postage Stamp necessary if posted in Republic of Ireland"? Am I the only one that hopes the world has not moved on? Because, if it has, I'm 54c down for the price of a stamp. --RA (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really expect the revenue commissioners to have read WP:IMOS? They're to busy collecting all that tax from the black economy. It would have been so simple of them to have said "... if posted in the Ireland ...". Fmph (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You know you've spent too much time on Wikipedia when you start wondering why real things aren't pipelinked. I'm speaking from experience... JonChapple Talk 21:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Snowded - you say here that "we had enough socks etc last time to be the subject of a whole dissertation". I'm aware of one, whose vote was struck. What other ones were there? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a bit of historical revisionism may be going on to make it appear that a solution was around the corner. Maybe i'm wrong, i did just say i think, not that i know. Mabuska (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Ulster Volunteer Force (1966)
There is an RM to move Ulster Volunteer Force (1966) back to its previous title of Ulster Volunteer Force. Since this is presumably of interest to editors on both sides of the border I thought it would be appropriate to notify this project. The discussion is here. --Scolaire (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing a closing date for discussion
The clock is ticking. Per above, ArbCom is leaving it up to us to handle this sensibly. Before we try to settle on a format it is critical that we have a closing date. Six weeks has been suggested, which would bring us to 30 October. If we don't have agreement - or at least have agreement in sight - by then it needs to be closed either with a poll or with an ArbCom ruling of some sort. Failure to agree to a closing date in advance would leave the door open for another year-long talk-fest, which would be catastrophic. I think it would be no harm for all involved to sign up now to a definite closing date. Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree to a 30 October closing date. Scolaire (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree to 30 October. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree to 30 October. Good suggestion. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree to 30 October. --RA (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree on the basis that the discussions are pretty open. Fmph (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree to 30 October as too short, and asking people to take a decision without knowing exactly what it is we're setting a deadline on. Setting a deadline, in advance, creates a situation whereby deliberately obfuscating and using delaying tactics benefits those wishing to keep the status quo.  I believe we all want to avoid a repeat of last time, but this isn't the correct procedure.  --HighKing (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that a time limit needs to be set, and be that 30 days (as per RfC's) or 30 October I don't see it as likely to make much difference. In response to HighKing, I can see ways that by not setting a deadline and prolonging this is just as likely to have the effect of benefiting those wishing to change. Fixing a deadline will have the effect of focusing the mind on the subject. Mt  king  (edits)  23:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no problem agreeing a deadline once we know what it is we're supposed to be agreeing to. At least with an RfC there's already an established procedure and structure.  We don't have that here.  People are agreeing to something they've no idea about.  Like, does anyone even know what the next step is?  Yes?  No?  --HighKing (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not agreeing to anything at the moment. We're agreeing that we'll allow discussion of article names after 18 September, that's all. Each and every contributor has the option of collaborating or obfuscating, regardless whether there's a time limit of six weeks or six years. If we can agree a duration for the discussion (and realistically, it won't take more than six weeks to determine whether we can reach an agreement or not), then we can talk about how the discussion is to be structured and how we can prevent disruption by any party. But we need to get on our bikes because we've only got twelve days left before a free-for-all develops. Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there's no evidence that anybody wants to open a new page move discussion after the 18th in any case, and therefore this deadline-setting isn't required - other than to serve as a way of shutting down any possible future page-move discussion.
 * Also, you say we're not agreeing to anything. I disagree - it seems that people are agreeing to shut down discussions after 6 weeks if nothing is resolved.  I'm not agreeing to that.
 * Finally, I've no problems agreeing to timeframes for each stage of a consensual process once a page move request has been made. Looking above, a discussion on this was started and no agreement made - which shows that setting a 6 weeks deadline is nonsense and only hands the initiative and advantage to the status quo. Until the 18th, and until a page move request is made (and properly advertised), this is a waste of time and I don't see this as sticking, sorry.  --HighKing (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A page move request made on the 18th will be closed after five days by a regular RM closer, almost certainly in favour of the status quo, and ArbCom will be only to happy to ban further discussion for another two years. Why you would want to go down that route I can't imagine, but I'm sure a number of editors would gladly go along with it. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You do understand, I suppose, that when we talk about closing discussions on 30 October, that means opening an RM after that date, if that is the road we go down. The deadline is only on talks to decide how the issue is to be settled. Scolaire (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If we can't come to an agreement within 6 weeks, then Arbcom would be right in imposing another 2-year freeze. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fmph's suggestion
Fmph has a suggestion that he believes could change the way we all think about this issue. Is there any reason why he should not tell us now what his suggestion is? It certainly would not go against the intention of the "binding resolution", in fact it would aid progress. I don't think it would even be a technical breach: the resolution only forbids discussion of page moves. And anyway, the rest of us are not making any secret of what way we intend to go! Fmph's suggestion might change our minds about how (or whether) discussion should proceed. Keeping it a secret because of some perceived taboo accomplishes nothing. I say, let's hear it! Scolaire (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose this discussion. We are getting into semantics. If I make anything relating to a page move suggestion we will inevitably get comments about it's merits or lack thereof. And that will be the forbidden discussion. Lets wait until at least the 18th. Not long now.Fmph (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to avoid semantics! It's only semantics that's stopping you from revealing your big secret. Nobody will be crazy enough to block you for it! If there is a consensus just to poll on extending the ban (and I'm very close to voting for that) then we'll never get to hear your suggestion, or we'll hear it too late to have it debated. But it's your decision, and it's your loss. Scolaire (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been quite vocal over the last 2 years in 'shutting-up' those that wanted to discuss changes. There is no way I would break a habit of a lifetime with just less than a fortnight to go. And it wouldn't be my loss. It would be the communities loss. And I don't believe the wider community is silly enough to vote for continuing the ongoing regular disruption related to page move requests without at least have a few weeks discussions about possible solutions. I think the community is bigger and better than that. If I'm proved wrong then so be it. But it's no skin off my nose. Fmph (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or mine either. But I can guarantee you that if there is a majority in favour of going straight to a poll on a ban, there will be a majority in favour of a ban. If you reveal a ground-breaking proposal at that stage, some will read it, some will not, and we'll all still go ahead and vote for a ban. The "wider community" will shrug its shoulders. It did its bit two years ago and it doesn't want to be bothered again. I probably should admire your principled stand, but I'm afraid I don't; it's a stand for a meaningless principle. Scolaire (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled as to why an editor who is in favour of the status quo is pushing for this discussion. The reasoning of "preempting future disruption" just doesn't sit with me.... Anyone care to enlighten me? --HighKing (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never made a secret of the fact that I favour the status quo, and I have always pushed for discussion (a) because consensus is Wikipedia policy and (b) because I believe in fairness. Play an imaginary violin if you want, but it's true. I don't know who was reasoning in terms of "preempting future disruption" but it wasn't me. Those who want to disrupt will disrupt no matter what I do or say. Anyway, you can rest easy. I'm going to stop pushing and vote with the majority. Scolaire (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing a structure for discussion
No need to close the foregoing section, but at this stage it at least gives us an idea of where people stand on a time-limited discussion. Now, it seems to me that if we want to get ArbCom approval for a talks structure, we'll need to give them at least five days notice. That gives us seven days to try and come up with something that will work. Before going any further, I would like to suggest the following as a guiding principle: So, to business. I'm thinking maybe another straw poll like the one above. We could offer Fmph's/RA's/my proposal, Snowded's proposal, and any other proposal that anyone wants to put forward (perhaps HighKing?). We should also offer the option of a simple unstructured discussion; some people will prefer that. I wouldn't see any need to make rules about how people vote on this straw poll - they could support, oppose, vote for more than one, vote 1,2,3,4 according to their choice etc. More options could be added at any time, people could change their vote, and the thing could be left open right up to the last minute, even though we've given ArbCom an interim summary half-way through. We might try not to have too many added comments, and negative comments or comments directed at specific or unspecified editors would be discouraged. Anyone agree? Scolaire (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever structure is agreed upon in advance, we should be able at any time during the process to modify it, augment it, overturn it or substitute it if there is a general consensus to do so, arising out of the discussion proper.


 * Above all, intolorence of commenting on contributors is paramount. Editors slinging mud at each other will only increase the chances of discussion meltdown. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, a much faster and simpler mechanism to save a lot of time and energy would be to simply poll to see if people want to retain the status quo. Or not.  I've no doubt the arguments are exactly the same as last time, and I've no doubt that the vast majority of editors will poll the same as last time.  Nobody wants to flog a dead horse here, and I suspect this horse is long dead.  --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Before doing enything we should find out (by poll) how meny want to keep the status quo and how meny don't. If a majority want to keep the status quo then nothing more need be don. If a majority want a change then we 'start the process'. ~Asarlaí 23:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In agreement, it would save alot of hair-pulling, if the result happend to be infavour of status-quo. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I have said previously that I do have a new suggestion to make and a straw poll is not the place to introduce that. I'm hoping that I'm not the only one thinking out of the box.Fmph (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just ask Arbcom to appoint someone to manage the discussion? Protagonists in the debate (and that includes myself, Scolarie, RA etc.) should probably stay out of the structure as none of us can be said to be independent. -- Snowded TALK  05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried!!!! But they are not very receptive. And I think that is in their nature. They are Arbitors (or Arbitrators?) not implementors. They will decree, not enforce. thats down to willing admins to take on. Perhaps we should go to ANI and ask for someone to come over here and play? Fmph (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, ArbCom have been asked here how we should manage it, and they all seem to favour letting us manage it ourselves. If you want to ask them straight out to take it over, I would support you. But even if they were agreeable, which I would be doubtful of, it would take them five or six days to say so, and we can't afford to be doing nothing for that long when we've only got ten days to sort it. And if RA, you and I don't do the preliminary work, nobody will, which would lead to anarchy. That's why I'm going ahead with my straw poll. Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on structure
This is a simple consensus-building exercise with no particular rules except one: comments directed at specific or unspecified editors are discouraged. Options may be tacked on, and people can change their minds, at will. Scolaire (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Option 1

 * 1) A self-regulated, time limited discussion starting on 18 September and ending on 30 October
 * 2) Formal statements by participants with no responses, and no repitition
 * 3) At the end of the period ArbCom, or a moderator nominated by ArbCom, to decide (a) to start another ballot; (b) to extend the moratorium on discussions/moves; or (c) to extend the ongoing discussions for a specified period of time.


 * Support. Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Structured and clear cut. --RA (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose good except for the no responses/no repitition bit. We need to be able to challenge daftnest and test propositions. Thats what a discussion is actually about. Fmph (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By no responses and no repitition I only mean no long strings of "yes it does", "no it doesn't", which invariably generate more heat than light. Contributors could edit their own statements to respond to "daftness" in other people's, or there could be a separate, general discussion area with the proviso that contributors don't say the same thing over and over. Scolaire (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Option 2

 * 1) Have a period where editors opt into one of two groups via two working pages. One is to create arguments for a move, the other against.  Their task over say two weeks is to produce an agreed summary within a limited number of words.
 * 2) Nominees from both groups agreed by those groups spend a couple of weeks working through alternatives/compromises that might satisfy a majority of editors on both sides and lay them out with a rationale'
 * 3) Open discussion on the compromises and see if we can at least get them to one or two options that most people can live with, or ranked or maybe one that is agreed. If possible we want to avoid a position where every two years one side wins or another looses.  That discussion needs a senior admin or two as mediator.
 * 4) If all that fails we all stop and hand over the material to some neutrals appointed by Arbcom who then produce and run a ballot.


 * Oppose this assumes there are two groups of editors when there are many shades of grey. This kind of division would simply harden the "us and them" mentality which has blighted these discussions in the past. Valenciano (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment - i don't oppose it. It just don't believe it could/would work. Fmph (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cautious Support on the basis that this sees the two groups as "Status Quo" and "Change". Otherwise I agree with Valenciano above, there's more than 2 groups.  --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In an ideal world, something like this (with more groups) would be ideal. But see Robbers Cave Experiment for why this is a bad idea in the real world. ("None of the boys were previously acquainted before the experiment, but hostility between the groups was observed within days of first contact. Phase Two activities proceeded as planned, but soon proved overly successful. Hostility between the groups escalated to the point where the study team concluded the friction-producing activities could not continue safely.") Hans Adler 09:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Option 3
An admin-directed discussion with no input into structure by involved editors.
 * Support, if anybody can be found to take it on. Oppose: we won't find anybody to take it on. Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Option 4a
A simple unstructured discussion, followed by an RM, if appropriate.


 * Support, if it turns out to be the simpler and more popular option Scolaire (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cautious While I like this option, I am cautious about it for because (a) it is not time limited and (b) it does not have a finality. I believe that we need to have an end date to discussion, and what ever the result, that should be it for two more years. --RA (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral (and reserving the right to change). The problem is, whatever the outcome, there's nothing to stop another RM a few weeks or months down the line.  Then another.  We'd be back to 2008/2009. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. But six months at least between discussions. Actually HMOG is my opinion about all this. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know this one. Holy Mother of God? Scolaire (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And Saints Preserve Us ;-) Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - with caution - we have got to have a meaningful enddate for discussions. Not only does an enddate give power to the stallers, no enddate gives power to the disruptors. I'm happy with Oct30. Fmph (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Option 4b
A simple unstructured discussion, followed by an RM, if appropriate, all to be completed by 30 October and followed by a moratorium for two years.
 * Support, if it turns out to be the simpler and more popular option. Scolaire (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Simplest option, reduces potential for drama, and is usual practice. --RA (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * support - sort of - I don't believe we should be imposing pre-conditions like 2 year moratoriums in advance. I have a suggestion that I think could be a forever option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is not stating the obvious - I thought it would be - but there would not be a moratorium if there was no need for a moratorium. Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A time-limited unstructured discussion provides an incentive for supporters of the status quo to cause disruption. Hans Adler 09:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Option 5
Simply poll to see if people want to retain the status quo. If so, do nothing more.
 * Support a simple vote, without discussion on "Should the ArbCom binding resolution on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles be extended for a further 2 years ?" Mt  king  (edits)  09:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Mtking. No point in continuing this whole thing if there's no enthusiasm for a move in the first place. JonChapple Talk 09:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Mtking - no point doing this if it can be opened up again in 3 or 6 months. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support May be a useful exercise in accompaniment to any of the other approaches too. --RA (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I feel that the issues have been discussed enough, to death in fact. &#9733; K E Y S &#9733; (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with another moratorium on this topic for another period of time. Per Mtking but 2 years probably too much, but if we can test consensus (like this) quickly, we could opt for a lesser period - 9 months or 1 year. --HighKing (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - we need to have a real discussion not a poll. Fmph (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the closed minds option and I am really surprised and disappointed by some of the support that it has received here. I thought we had a bit more WP:AGF around.Fmph (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a discussion ? There is no point in a discussion if the mood is not there for one. Mt  king  (edits)  04:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * During the last 2 years, I am aware of at least 100 discussions (I'm sure there were many more) which disputed either the names of the articles or the implementation of WP:IMOS in relation to the names of the articles. That means that this problem has not gone away. It is sitting there just below the surface, bubbling over every now and then. Wouldn't it be better if we had a more stable solution? That's what I mean by need. If we can't agree an improvement then we stick with the status quo. End of. We solve every other difficulty on WP by having discussions. Why not this one? What is the problem with having 2, 4, 6 weeks of discussions and then moving on. As I say above, the closed minds approach is to avoid discussions. Surely the least beneficial outcome of discussions (and I'm not saying it's a bad outcome, just that we can't get anything worse) would be that we keep the status quo. Anything else is a bonus. What's the upside of poll without any discussions? Fmph (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support ~Asarlaí 17:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as this is quite a direct course. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Mabuska (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Two, five, or ten years. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.  Night w   04:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support a poll on Mtking's motion, including the two years. If the tide hasn't turned in the last two years it won't turn in the next nine months. Oppose any poll without discussion. That's not the way we do things on Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. This favours the status quo, but the status quo is reasonable enough that this is not a big problem. This proposal creates a strong incentive for those who favour change to make a convincing proposal. It also weighs reasons for change against a desire for peace. This creates a certain danger that the poll will be dominated by editors who don't really care about the articles but want the dispute to go away because it's boring. Hans Adler 09:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up
So - six days and no more input. And four more days to "D-Day". For the record, I make the results of the above options as: Neutrals not counted. Caveats not counted. Option 5 is obviously the most popular among those who participated. But only a relative handful of people participated... Any suggestions as to what happens now? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Option 1: 3 supports, 1 oppose;
 * Option 2: 1 support, 1 oppose;
 * Option 3: 2 supports;
 * Option 4a: 3 supports;
 * Option 4b: 4 supports;
 * Option 5: 12 supports, 1 oppose.


 * Either somebody goes to Arbitration/Requests/Clarification (what a mouthful!) and tries to get ArbCom to explicitly sanction a poll under option 5, or somebody just sets up the poll on the 18th. I'm guessing the latter. Scolaire (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we would need to get the ArbCom nod beforehand if we intend to poll on extending the moratorium for another two years. --RA (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I have tried to get them to commit to something/anything without success. Alternatively, instead of stasrting a poll on ythe 18th, someone could just as easily start a discussion. IMHO, that would be the 'normal' WP way of doing things, not starting with a poll. Fmph (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree but we don't want the discussion to go on forever — particularly if no-one wants it. We've been over this territory, and it was demoralizing. It is not catastrophic if people want things to stay as they are. --RA (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Going by the arbitrators comments on the Request for Clarification, they don't want to tell us what we're doing, they want us to do it for ourselves. See in particular this comment by PhilKnight. However, if somebody wants to ask them, they should go ahead and ask them. Realistically, starting a discussion isn't an option if we've discussed starting a discussion and voted overwhelmingly to go straight to a poll. Scolaire (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that a small core of involved editors can decide there should be no discussions. That's not the WP way. I don't believe it would stand up to the scrutiny of the wider community. I'll be starting a discussion on the 18th even if no one else does. I cannot believe that you would be in favour of discussing a possible way forward last week in breach of ArbCom restrictions and yet would oppose having those same discussions on the 18th. Fmph (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe a small core of involved editors should decide whether we should have a discussion or not — but at the same time if nobody wants to discuss this (honestly, I'm still exhausted from the last time!) then maybe waiting for another two years might be a reasonable approach.
 * At the same time, you're right, those unhappy with the status quo are entitled to have their say. --RA (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When I proposed the above, I had in mind something along the lines of Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag the "no discussion" was not meant to stop any and all discussion just discussion on the various options for changes, just a the simple question ("Should the ArbCom binding resolution on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles be extended for a further 2 years ?") with a Support, Oppose and a General discussion section. Mt  king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm - that's not what the poll above is for - it's not about extending for another 2 years. It's about whether anybody wants to change from the way we're currently doing things.  At least that's the way I read it.  We can decide for how long fairly quickly afterwards but I think 2 years is too long, especially if we can use a quick and painless poll like this to test consensus.  --HighKing (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you clarified that. If the poll format allows for a discussion, then we'll quickly find out whether people want a discussion or not. And if Fmph's "wider community" do want to see a discussion, then the opposes will win the day and there won't be a simple extension of the ban.
 * Fmph, I hope I'm wrong, but your post suggests that you are considering some sort of unilateral action on the 18th. That would be very unwise, given the comments of the arbitrators on the Request for Clarification that you initiated. What you call a small core of editors is in fact all the editors who were bothered to give an opinion. Everybody that was involved before knew where to come to make their views known, and everybody who didn't come was effectively voting for no discussion. If you raise the question, and then go against the majority decision, I would be concerned that ArbCom would come down on you like a ton of bricks. Scolaire (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, but I already have a mother who does all my worrying for me. Fmph (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ba-ZING! JonC Talk 22:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since at least one member of ArbCom has this page watchlisted, it would be nice if they could come and comment and let us know if this is moving in the right direction. Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  22:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My good faith genes are in overdrive at present trying to rationalise how the poll above envisioned an RFC style no-discussion vote when no one had previously mentioned the term RFC whatsoever. That aside, the RFC referenced above came into being following two previous very long but unsuccessful discussions where no consensus was found. That is in marked contrast to this project where we have had a very successful discussion and STV poll 2+ years ago with very wide community involvement, and where a decision was agreed and where arbcom directed that the decision be respected for a period of 2 years. There was certainly an implication at that time that the matter could (and would) be re-opened and discussed again after 2 years was up. I dont believe that RFC sets any precedent for the matter under discussion. It also doesnt matter how short those discussion should be. I've suggested 6 weeks would be a good time and I stand by it. But be it 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week or 1 month, there should be some discussions, and I think it would be madness to think that somehow imposing a ban on discussions would be less disruptive to the project in the future. Finding a lasting and stable consensus should be the top priority of all editors. Fmph (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But who do you think is going to impose a ban on discussions? A poll as suggested by Mtking would determine whether there was agreement for a ban on future discussions. There will of course be discussion during the poll, as part of the poll. Looking at Mtking's RfC example - which was only an example and not a precedent - I see a very lively discussion taking place, and at a glance I can't see any posts being removed as off-topic or such-like. Again, if there is any sort of consensus not to extend the ban but to allow a free, unrestricted discussion, then that will be the outcome of the poll. Nothing in the proposal envisages anything being "imposed". Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'd support that, but it's not what I believe is being proposed. So let me clarify, we are going to have a discussion followed by a poll as to whether the status quo should be extended for an agreed period? Is that it? And we havent yet decided how long these discussions/polls should take, nor for how long the status quo should be extended (if thats the consensus extracted from the poll)? Is that correct? Fmph (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the majority of people voting for option 5 were voting for a poll on Mtking's question, "Should the ArbCom binding resolution on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles be extended for a further two years?", to be opened on 18 September. The answer to that question would be "yes" or "no", but there would be nothing to stop people from voting "yes, but for a shorter period" or any other qualification. Like any poll, it would not be decided by counting !votes; the outcome would have to reflect the consensus of what you call the "wider community". The poll would include a "discussion" section, and, as far as I am concerned at least, any and all reasonable discussion would be welcomed. Obviously (I hope), re-hashing the old arguments would be discouraged, and obviously (I hope), any disruptive behaviour would be clamped down on, but otherwise discussion should be free and open and ideally directed towards finding a lasting and stable consensus. If we found such a consensus, the poll could then be closed because it would no longer be necessary. Otherwise, the duration of the poll should be as long as people continue to contribute to it, but no longer than six weeks. And, just to state the obvious once again, the result of the poll will be "no" if that's what people want. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ireland --> Island of Ireland
When the great Ireland page-moving day almost upon us, I am here to propose the obvious: That the article Ireland be renamed Island of Ireland. The phrase "Island of Ireland" gets 10,900 post-1990 hits on Google Books and thus clearly a phrase in common use. Googling shows that the Republic is prominent as a desired topic for the term "Ireland". This suggests that many readers come the "Ireland" article expecting a country article, unaware that the article they wish to read is at the lemma Republic of Ireland. The term "Ireland" would direct to "Island of Ireland" after this move, without prejudice to any future request regarding its status. Kauffner (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Option G
I have mentioned on a number of occasions that I felt there was an option that might be a acceptable solution to the wider community to the Ireland article naming issues. nearly pre-empted me yesterday. So I felt it was an appropriate time to share my proposal with the community.

In the last poll, I voted for the status quo, or Option F. The reason I did that was that it was the only option that used exclusively natural language names for the 2 main articles. I despise WPs adoption of parentheses as disambiguators. For me, they are not a very natural way to disambiguate. I feel that no one would type "Ireland (state)" into a search engine so why would we place the article about the state in that position in the article space? But I have to live with it here on WP, although I will usually look for a more natural language alternative if I get the chance.

Whether many of us Irish like it or not, Republic of Ireland passes both the natural language test and WP:COMMON. RoI is quite widely (ab?)used, and not just in the sporting arena. It is most widely used across the UK, although Southern Ireland and Eire are also used quite commonly. So the status quo works for me. But the problem with Option F, is that many (mainly Irish?) contributors here believe that the use of Republic of Ireland as the title for the article about the Irish state fails both WP:POVTITLE and WP:NDESC, and its easy to understand why they do. Before the Belfast Agreement, it was widely used by British officialdom. And it's use causes regular disruption on the pedia.

Wouldn't it be nice to find an alternative that proved to be: I think I have such a solution and will propose it below.
 * widely accepted
 * totally WP:NPOV
 * in natural English

The art of article naming
If we look at the intro to the article naming policy, we find that the policy sets out 5 key aspects to choosing an article title:(I've numbered them for ease of reference only)
 * Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognisable name or description of the topic.
 * Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
 * Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title. For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.
 * Conciseness – titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer.
 * Consistency – titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.

Of these 5, I think I have a proposal that can satisfy the first four, and feel that #5 - Consistency - can safely be put to one side as not really relevant to article naming for the subjects under discussion.

Between the original arbcom case and the most recent poll, there was only one fleeting mention of the proposal I will make below, so although it has previously been mentioned in passing, it has never really been considered as a viable alternative to the current status quo. I'm unsure why, as it fits the criteria very well.

The actual proposal
My proposal is as follows:
 *  G : The state at Ireland . The island at island of Ireland .
 * Ireland → island of Ireland
 * Republic of Ireland → Ireland
 * Ireland (disambiguation) → no change
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! Name of page ! Initial text (the first sentence in the article) This is very similar to Option B in the previous poll, with the exception that instead of moving Ireland to Ireland (island) we move it to island of Ireland. That may not seem much of a difference, but I believe it is big enough to create a WP:consensus. For a start island of Ireland is already a redirect of Ireland, but funnily enough its one which is in use in a number of places. As of today (7/7/2011)it is used in 12 articles, 2 templates, and is referenced from 15 pages in the WP namespace, as well as numerous pages in userspace and in talkspace. So it is most definitely active.
 * island of Ireland
 * The island of Ireland is the third-largest island in Europe, and the twentieth-largest island in the world.
 * Ireland
 * Ireland is an independent state in north-western Europe. The modern sovereign state occupies about five-sixths of the island of Ireland, which was partitioned on 3 May 1921.
 * Ireland (disambiguation)
 * Ireland commonly refers to: ...
 * }
 * Ireland (disambiguation)
 * Ireland commonly refers to: ...
 * }

So lets run thro the 5 key aspects above and see if this option satisfies them:
 * 1) Recognisability - apart from the fact that there is an inherent ambiguity in 2 entities with the same name, the 2 new article names are most definitely recognisable.
 * 2) Naturalness - this is one where, I'd suggest, my proposal beats both the status quo and all the previous proposals. With the status quo, we use a pipe to satisfy the requirements for actual names. With my proposal, the WP:IMOS could be amended to avoid pipes entirely (although pipes would be essential during the moves) after the moves.  As I've mentioned above island of Ireland is a very natural disambiguation. It is widely used in both conversation and written work, both inside WP and without.
 * 3) Precision - well the new article name is about as precise as you can get.
 * 4) Conciseness -  given the avoidance of pipes, the proposed structure is obviously more concise, notwithstanding the fact that the combined length of the 2 article titles would be 2 characters shorter in the new world.
 * 5) consistency - I don't think there is any improvement in consistency, and I'm not sure it is that important in a disambiguation situation.

Performing the move
If we agree to go with Option G, then actually performing the move will require some thought. I think a process like this might work:
 * 1) Using a bot, we move every instance of " island of Ireland" to " island of Ireland"
 * 2) Using a bot, we move all remaining instances of "Ireland" to "Ireland"
 * 3) We move Ireland over the redirect island of Ireland
 * 4) We move Republic of Ireland to Ireland
 * 5) We create a redirect from Republic of Ireland to Ireland
 * 6) Using a bot, we move every instance of Ireland to Ireland
 * 7) We look at the instances of Republic of Ireland to see if they require further disambiguation or if they can be moved en masse to Ireland
 * 8) We amend WP:IMOS to take account of the changes
 * 9) We look at all Ireland instances to see if they require further disambiguation or if they can be moved en masse to island of Ireland

Changes to IMOS
There will be some changes required to WP:IMOS. For a start the section title would need to go. But after that I think we need a paragraph to explain the status quo before the change. And follow that with some info explaining that the current status quo - Ireland[island of Ireland]] that there shouldn't be a necessity for any disambiguation. I think a suggestion that where an editor finds an article where they feel disambiguationisrequired, they should bring it to the attention of the community (perhaps at WP:IECOLL?) and ask for some advice from the wider community.

Summary
So to summarise, going with Option G has a number of benefits. In the long term, we will have a less disrupted pedia. And compared to the piping/dab issues we have now, things will be much simpler overall. And the language we use in relation to Irish topics will be much more natural. I commend Option G to the community. Fmph (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments
― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 00:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * “Island of Ireland” isn't that commonly used. I'd prefer Ireland (island).

China article rename process: useful for Ireland?
FYI: A similar rename discussion was recently held on the China set of articles, and many similar (not to say identical) issues were discussed. The outcome was that "China" article would refer to the larger communist country, because that was the most common usage of the term "China". Republic of China is the article on the smaller country. The discussion was in two places: I was a bit surprised that the result was to approve the move, because I assumed that inertia would prevent any change. This China article move may provide some evidence that renaming the Ireland articles may also be feasible, if consensus so indicates. Specifically, the process of using a "triumvirate" of three admins to make the final move decision may be useful for the Ireland articles. Or not. --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A request for move and
 * ANI which created a group of 3 admins which closed the Request for Move.


 * Korea is another example. Macedonia too (and is maybe even more infamous that this debate). Like the China example, however, each of these cases have similarities but unique aspects also.
 * I have to say that I am not surprised at the China move. I think there is sufficient overlap between the PRC and the broad concept of "China" to enable enable a merge. For example, understanding the Taiwanese claim is not all that important to understanding China as a broad topic. Compare with Northern Ireland in the Ireland example. Understanding Northern Ireland — and that Ireland is partitioned — is relatively basic information on the subject of Ireland. If someone came away from an article on China without knowing about the Taiwan claim and something about its background, that really couldn't be said to detract from their general understanding of the broad concept of "China". On the other hand, if someone came away from an article on Ireland without knowing that Ireland is partitioned and that Belfast is in the UK and Dublin is in an independent state, that would be quite a failure to come away with basic facts on the subject. For this reason, I think the Korean example is more akin to Ireland. -- RA (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All good points. The point I was raising wasn't so much China as an example ("China got moved, so Ireland should be moved also") as I was trying to draw attention to the process that was used.  Since any move proposal on Ireland will always have about 50/50 or 60/40 !votes, that means that there will never be a strong consensus; thus the status quo will be maintained forever, even if the policy-based arguments are strong in one direction.  The China rename used a group of three uninvolved editors who reviewed the Request for Move and made a unanimous decision. --Noleander (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way: Isn't there some WP essay out there about how difficult it is to make a change (in any WP policy etc) because it is virtually impossible to get a clear consensus when large numbers of editors weigh-in?   I seem to recall seeing such an essay once. --Noleander (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I didn't mean to sound like I was arguing a case either. I more just wanted to contrast these examples.
 * I haven't seen that essay but the there can sometimes be a "tyranny of consensus": where consensus obviously doesn't exist but a so-called "'consensus' version" is forcibly kept in place because "there is no consensus to change". That is very annoying when it happens. -- RA (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The essay I saw (it was several years ago) was something like "If there is a change proposed to any WP policy, and if there are more than 40 editors that participate, the minority !vote will always be at least 35% or larger, and therefore there will never be a apparent consensus to change, and therefore nothing will ever change." Or something like that :-) --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great news about China, as it was a particularly glaring silliness in Wikipedia which made it look as if a minor POV or set of POVs had dictated the naming of the world's largest country article. Which in fact was the case. I have concerns on the process nonetheless - who decided on who the three admins should be and how were they picked? Reading that material, it isn't very obvious and I would have thought they should have been voted for on something so contentious. On the overlap between the China/PRC/Taiwan issue itself and the Ireland/Historic Ireland/Island/NI issue, there clearly are some similarities. I would still like to see a table or set of pages (as proposed above by HighKing) with some hard work done to thoroughly expose the pros and cons of each solution and what the solutions are. There are unique aspects to the Ireland naming. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the China article process went like this: (1) there was an RfC in the Talk page of the China article, which solicited input from uninvolved editors, and a few rename ideas were discussed - that went on a few weeks;  (2) after the RfC exhaustively covered all the options/paths, a Request for Move for what appeared to be the strongest proposal was initiated;  (3) after the RM went on for a couple of weeks (I think the !voting was around 55/45) an ANI was initiated to explore how to close it; (4) in the ANI, three uninvolved admins volunteered to work together to study the RfC and RM and make a decision.  (5) the three admins discussed and made a decision. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How did that process avoid the generation of pages upon pages of repeated arguments? Was there a "summary" page or a table of the arguments?  I suggested this above, but I was repeating an idea made earlier - it strikes me as a clean way to keep the protagonists apart while the arguments and counter-arguments based on policies, etc, are developed.  --HighKing (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a Summary table created in one of the RfCs preceding the RM: the Summary table is here.   The  Request for Move is here.  One of the prior RfCs is here (I think there were 2 RfCs before the Request for Move).  I cannot say if the closing admins relied on that Summary table or not: they may have have started their deliberations afresh.  --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Summary table looks like something that is missing from this topic and would benefit everybody, especially those trying to understand the scope of this issue. Would other editors be interested in helping to create a table like this?  --HighKing (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that summary table was pretty handy. It took away the beating-a-dead-horse repetition factor.  However, I do recall that some editors tried to "stack" the table by inserting the same argument into the table 2 or 3 times, worded slightly differently each time, as if they believed the proposal with the largest number of "pro" entries would be the winner.  --Noleander (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The structure of the table is good. I am happy to help with filling it out. Not sure what all the base options are and what all the "rival camps" are exactly, but perhaps we could start by just listing the main options from above in the table and then using the structure. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The vote was completely divided on if there should be a change or not, the status quo should have stood in the case of China, to allow 3 individual admins to dictate the outcome would be hugely controversial and problematic in the case of this naming dispute. The admins who were involved in the collaboration process on the Ireland naming dispute got a lot of abuse, and they did not even decide the outcome, they simply presided over the process which included a major poll of over 100 people who were mostly completely uninvolved from the debate. The outcome of that poll was very clear, there has been stability in this area for 2 years and now is not the time to rehash old arguments. The articles should be locked in place for another 2 years, and the status quo has the clear overwhelming majority support in the poll above. Whilst there were not "tables" from what i can remember, there were many pages and lists of pros and cons for each of the possible options. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that if the community wished to appoint 3 wise admin persons to make the final judgement and take the decision out of the hands of all the regulars here, I'd support that one million percent (as Louis is prone to saying on X-Factor). It would have to be better then all the disgruntlement and disagreement going on here at present.Fmph (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say, the 3 admins approach is probably the fairest way. I wonder could we recruit the same 3 admins that worked on the China judgement.  In one sense, they're now experienced, and it's as random as any other mechanism of choosing admins.  --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the levels of heat I agree. Presumably the issue now will be which three admins to choose! I would prefer they be drawn from these islands, given the cluelessness we sometimes observe in those coming in from "outside". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not easy to surprise me here James, but that did it. I admit I have to think a second before saying darbisher, and if I am reading it silently I still f--- it up. Every time. Even worse are blahklee, daunleeda and kilwonteyn. And how the heck is Samhain "sawin"? Back on subject, you should know, being from those islands does not possession of clue guarantee. I should chill though, I don't want to hurt Dana's chance at office. You never know, if Martin McGuinness gets his way, worldwide chapters of the Rose of Tralee may be given 50 votes each; it's only fair. Imelda May might have a chance, though secretly I want Moya Brennan. Donegal is always an afterthought it seems. This is silly, you have a point, some of those Australians are really dim. Like, who would eat dried keg dregs? In case the light bulb hasn't lit yet, I think actually that a wider view, rather than the current parochial, entrenched views, gives this question a better hope of resolution. I believe the current awkward arrangement that I have found bizarre and clueless on its own is a result of having it 95% discussed and decided by you islanders. You guys could use some outside help, but agree, people who at a minimum know the geography and history. By the way, when I was in my twenties in Richmond, the word used for wheelie bins when they were introduced was "supercans". Thanks again for reading. Sswonk (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seemed to me that the most significant factor in resolving the China debate was to take into account only non-partisan comments. So in our case, Wikipedians who identify as Irish or British would have no say. Immediately we lose all the background noise from the usual suspects (including me!) and a clear signal is likely to emerge, as it did with China. --Red King (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The two situations are entirely different and you should not expect the same outcome. The case against a change here is very clear.. There is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. The country does not control the whole island, and it does not own the history of Ireland which has existed a lot longer than the state. There is no alternative name for the island, unlike Taiwan/Republic of China. Most sources when they talk about China today refer to the country, that can not be said about Ireland, where the island of Ireland is often what people mean.  BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would strongly oppose allowing just 3 people to determine the entire outcome of these articles. Terrible method compared to seeking what the wider community view is. of course the difference is on the China article the peoples views were completely divided so someone had to make a final judgement, in the case of the Ireland articles, one option was clearly more supported than others by the wider community and that was implemented and locked into place for two years. Had the outcome been a draw, then yes some unlucky admins or arbitrators would have had to decided. I cant help but remember the abuse that the admin got following the verdict of the people. it wasnt his fault how people voted, but the blame was still assigned and people moaned about it. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's lots of ways of interpreting the data from the last poll. The fact is, one option was selected using STV but the community was divided over the issue and the choice.  Using terminology like "people moaned about it" doesn't help and just gets people's backs up.  Let's not start down the road of personal comments.  I'd recommend an automatic 1 week ban for any personal comment from this topic.  --HighKing (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the votes, both this one and the earlier one, is that the attention of editors has been focused on the issue of whether the article on the republic should be entitled simply "Ireland". It's clear that there is a majority which strongly opposes this idea, and at the same time a minority anxious to argue in favor of it at every opportunity. So it might be more productive if we could somehow put this issue to the side and instead consider possibilities such as Ireland (state) or Ireland (republic). I consider the "Option G" proposal to be unhelpful. Kauffner (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why there is opposition to a troika of 3 editors making a decision.  In any Request for Move, after 7 days elapse, a single (!) editor reviews the discussion and makes a decision.  Increasing that quantity to three is clearly better than one.   --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we please condense this entire discussion!
Yikes, the amount of different sections/proposals/ideas dedicated to the exact same core issue (Ireland article naming) is over the top, and quite frankly with so many discussions on this idea and that is only going to confuse many editors who happen to come across it wanting to make an opinion.

Is there anyway this can be condensed or things taken one discussion at a time rather than everyone proposing this and that etc.? Mabuska (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is just after how many days? Imagine if the debate on this is completely reopened and we have to spend hours every day for the next 6 months discussing this all over again. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Status quo sounds so much better. Mabuska (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, the plan (Option 5) that most of us voted for has been ignored. Most of us voted that ther be only one poll: "Do you wish to retain the status-quo?" If the majority voted "yes", then nothing more would be done.
 * Insted, we now hav two simultaneous polls and a shiteload of discussion. ~Asarlaí 02:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Mabuska, yes we could. Make a page, much like an article, and sum the whole thing up. Summarise relevant facts, probable relevant facts, misconceptions, recurring points of debate on all of those, etcetera. Previous courses of action and previous response and result too. You will not remove the debate, but you will probably condense it a little and what you will definitely do is make for much easier drawing of conclusion. What you also might do, though, is to galvanise each reader into their opinion and make them difficult to sway as they will be more interested in what they have read in the summary than others points of contention. The method would probably be to try and make it less likely to sway a person one way or the other, while putting in as much information as possible, even including further reading and so on. I tried it before, it looked crap, I couldn't remain serious with it, got instantly bored with it, and no-one else took an interest which I can't say I blame them. None the less, I still thought the idea was good and if someone who fancied themselves good at that sort of thing were to throw up a bit of a skeleton that made some sense, everyone else would be compelled to add to or acknowledge it. Definitely these debates have got me to learn a thing or three about the whole matter, so it's also a good point of education in my view. I assume others who take an interest surely would like to learn all of the things that you or I have in the course. Others yet may consider it a catalyst for argument. I don't know. Nobody seems to want to comment on the idea...? ~ R . T . G  10:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think RTG has stated this well, it reads something like my thoughts about the procedural issues. And the poll as started by HighKing has approached part of my thinking as well by distilling the issue to an up or down choice. Something about polls and surveys though, is that the question very often determines a portion of the answers. So, instead of asking "should the status quo naming remain?" we could be asking "is disambiguation so necessary as to title the sovereign state article using an artificial name?". Not likely, which brings us back to the questions of who determines procedure, and results among a sharply divided group, again a contentious and difficult question. Thus I have lobbied repeatedly for an open ended discussion, possibly lasting years and certainly months, which I feel lessens the drama and the acrimony that mirrors the sometimes desperate events in the closing moments of sports contests or closing days of elections. Talk it through, and listen as well. Sswonk (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there's just too many different issues conflated into the issue of keeping the "status quo" or not
 * How to dab when required. We currently use "Republic of Ireland" in text where required.  This dab is also used by the state.  That's actually what it's for.
 * The name of the article currently residing at "Republic of Ireland". While in the last poll a majority want something different, the problem is they can't agree on a title - there are different (and sometimes conflicting) reasons each resulting in a reasoning for a unique different title.
 * I believe a table summarizing the arguments, much like the China discussion, should be attempted. I don't have enough time to start this right now, but if nobody else does, I will at some stage.  --HighKing (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Currently we have a narrow majority for keeping the status quo and instituting another 2-year moratorium, and a comfortable majority for keeping the status quo. Apparently a lot of people believe that the status quo is the best solution but don't mind another protracted dispute.

If we do want another discussion, it appears to me that the best approach is as follows. Let those who want change discuss it among themselves. Their only chance to get a majority for change is by finding an alternative proposal which most of them support, and which convinces many of those who are happy with the status quo. They should try their best to come up with one attractive proposal which we can vote on. If that fails (or even if it doesn't), and it looks as if another proposal might be more popular, then we can still vote about the other proposal. Maybe even a third, but people will get tired. Once a new solution has been agreed on, I anticipate that everybody will be so tired that there will be another moratorium. Hans Adler 15:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know HighKing, are you happy with the method used to compile, evaluate and correct items on the China table? Here is my take on it. Let's get the facts straight by leaving three blank sheets on a table. We invite everyone in the town to come and write something on each sheet. Those are the facts. I have to rubbish that. This is the most massive encyclopedia of knowledge ever known to exist, not some isolated village where we have just lost all our books. The way it was wrapped up was extremely efficient, apologies for the tone. The phrase, "Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ma'am," seems appropriate, not only because of the apparent speed and finality of the action, but because of the impartiality, uninvolvedness and ultimately, apparent disinterest. I for one didn't give the table too much consideration whereas, when China was brought up before in debate here, I went out of my way to read up about it and learn some in the process. The debate over there seems to have grown this lovely long sunflower. To sum up they had some kid go over, pluck the flower and give it a sniff. I might have said not to pluck the next one, just to sniff it. In reality, I think it would be more difficult to pluck a fact sheet than to pluck a table, and if you couldn't compile a factsheet about the table, I'd have to wonder if I should trust the table. It was vague..? ~ R . T . G  18:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What was behind it seemed somewhat vague rather than the table itself. ~ R . T . G  18:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that the sunflower was eventually picked and sniffed, and even if it was the ugliest sunflower because of bad manure, it's better than letting the head droop and seeds fall. --HighKing (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A table idea has been used before for options and who backed what such as was done for the "Countries of the UK" issue a wheen of months back. It helps condense the core dats in one place, namely an arguement and who backs it or opposes it. Mabuska (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to know who opposesor support it. Surely the arguments should live or die by their own merits and not by who supports or opposes them?Fmph (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. It isn't a vote.  --HighKing (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that. Its not meant to be a vote per se but a way of giving a general overview of what way the prevailing wind is blowing so that a path can be formulated to work upon and hopefully a consensus can then be found. If most people like an option a and b, and not many like options c or d, then we will know we should work with a and b to create an e that everyone can agree with if you catch my drift. Or scrap that idea as trying to explain it properly is confusing. Mabuska (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold on HighKing. I was using metaphors. You are being purely poetic. ~ R . T . G  02:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary table
Here is a blank summary table. I've populated it with three options, but I do not claim that those are the best ... they are just a starting point. Please put any comments about the table below the table, not above. Anyone should feel free to add content into the cells of the table. --Noleander (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sub-table for possible names of ROI article (useful if "Ireland" = island)
Here is a sub-table with options to be considered if "Ireland" article is about the island or is a dismbig page. This table considers the various possible names of the article that means the state/country. --Noleander (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of table
In the table above, "Consistency" is intended to address consistency of the proposal with other geography/nation articles. --Noleander (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * America, Macedonia, and Congo and all the common names of nations that have made DABs because of various controversies. An Ireland DAB could be reconsidered once there are view page stats to determine primary topic. Kauffner (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Takes loyalist POV side? See what I mean? How'd you get that idea? You just supposed it. If you were noting down how you came to your assumpions, you'd have avoided that yourself. Loyalism or loyalist ideology doesn't involve itself in opinions about what the island or the republic calls itself. There is no value in that for loyalism one way or the other. Check it out. You are wandering blindly. I'll read on I guess... ~ R . T . G  01:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Consistent with all WP nation articles" Well you just read that on Wikipedia. I read it here myself. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and here's why. What about America? ~ R . T . G  02:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about Antigua? Each case is unique. If it's worth all this debate it's worth it's own decisions. Without that we'd all be robbed... Maybe you disagree. Maybe you'd rather there was no arguments at the expense of detail. ~ R . T . G  02:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you define concise when you claim that "ROI" is not concise? Concise does not mean shorter. It means completely informative in the smallest possible space. This does not apply to defining Ireland as the state. And so on and so forth I'm going to bed goodnight :). ~ R . T . G  02:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the table can be one tool, but not the tool used to define the disagreement. Like the STV poll from 2009, and the potential disagreements today about who should write the questions, where decision makers should physically reside, and whether time enough is given to argue or if any limit at all is appropriate, the table will be subject to any number of objections and interpretations. You might even see a 16 to 10 vote on whether the table is accurate, should be deleted, should be randomly ordered via machine, if IP editors should be allowed to tweak it: you name it. Then that vote could be contested. The fact remains that, abstentionist or exiled or otherwise, a segment of the editorship is not even bothering to participate in this discussion, something I considered strongly myself. The view is that it is a waste of time, the fix is in. Their absence further skews things. I do think it is fair to say many loyalists and NI residents fall on the status quo side. It is also very fair to say that the written Wikipedia policy-forming opinions of editors from the United Kingdom, which Ireland seceded from after a very long and painful struggle, far outnumber those of Irish citizens living in the 26 counties. That makes for a very fair assessment of the situation as showing an inherent institutional bias on en.wikipedia.org. Yet, that assessment has been ignored and even scoffed at before. It probably won't make the table. So, along with the addition of authoritarian-sounding "end of discussion" four word votes above supporting a continued ban on discussion, you get further and further away from the possibility of changing the current awkward and incorrect title to something better through a system skewed away from important real world perspectives. With all due respect to everyone reading this, the use of bluelinked WP guideline pages is meaningless when the pillar of verifiability from reliable sources has been allowed to be overruled by the excuses and opinions of many living in a former occupying country when naming an article such as in this case. Those citizens of the republic who also support the current name have been unable to persuade me that its use is called for at all. There is a reason postal delivery regulations on envelopes are clarified via RoI, and the desk sign in front of the Irish U.N. delegation does not use the term. The first addresses parochial internal concerns, the second global external ones. Wikipedia could respect those reasons and follow the lead of the latter, but it doesn't. This is not an envelope, it is a source of information for thousands of readers daily and they are currently being given the incorrect impression through the title that Republic of Ireland is something like United States of America, an official name, when it is not. It is a bad title, and the decision process here has been terribly flawed in the past. If it takes some backroom dealing like Irish admins x y and z ringing Jimbo, or some other unlikely event, to get rid of RoI as a title, then there is something amiss at this project. We have to keep discussing this if integrity is to be assured here. Another closed discussion and lock down will basically do damage to the credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. Sswonk (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm darn near completely confused about what's been happening these last few days. Reckon I'll sit back & wait for the smoke to clear. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record: America is not a name for the country in any formal sense; it is mostly a colloquial name used in songs, speeches, advertising, casual conversation and so on. No serious English language encyclopedia would ever title its entry on this country "America". As a citizen born and living here my entire life, I know that. I have noticed that people from Europe who write here on Wikipedia talk pages do tend to call the United States "America" with much higher frequency than I would. When I write or converse, I talk of living in the United States, or U.S.; it is a place which along with Canada and Mexico is one of three large countries in North America. A good portion of the people who come here to visit or live come from Central America and South America. All of those together with Greenland can be called America. This appears to be a habitual thing with Europeans to think of "America" as a name of this country; don't worry, it isn't offensive, and "American" is the normal demonym for residents. However, it is not much more formal than a nickname, really. Ireland, however, is the full constitutional English name of a sovereign state, and the name Ireland is used along with the tricolor to represent the country in formal and official lists of nations, at the United Nations, etc., with high frequency. The sort of dab questions arising in this subtopic which use "America" as an example? Apples and oranges here. Sswonk (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the table above and some of the points put in it.. For example there is an inaccuracy about the disam option saying no other country is handled in sucha way. Yet there is Georgia. If we really want to rehash all the arguments and have the endless debate we did 2 years ago then we have to ensure all the points are accurate. If people really think a table is necessary to assist people in seeing the outcome then we must start from scratch and agree to each of the points put in. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Americans do not live in America. Where is that sort of argument going to lead us? How does that even apply to Ireland except to say that it is not a good guide for us? It is reasonable to imply a republican versus loyalist dispute using Wikipedia talk page debate as an example? The fact remains, the only reason such bias has been inferred is in comparison to other countries where such bias DOES exist. This is occuring because the approach is purely speculative rather than documentary. Relying on speculation is doing nothing bar encouraging editors to divide and galvanise opinion determined by their cultural identity rather than the facts available. I said division determined by, not opinion according to so if Wikipedia is your source of contention in that, my contention stands unless you cheat. I don't want your apples and oranges. I want Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the tool, and if we don't use it, we are all tools without purpose. You have gone out of your way to detail how Republic of Ireland is not official terminology, when in fact it is nothing but that, a significantly abused detail in the past. There is no reasonable way to indicate that through debate. We have basically proven so. You can intend use of this table to put a stop to such abuse, or you can try something more encouraging and reasonable that might fix it at the roots. I cannot assume one or other of these cultural identities you are all fascinated with. I can only demand both. This is an encylopaedia of knowledge, not a courtroom, a town hall meeting, or a gang fight. This is a library. Let us define what it is that we are talking about rather than what we are merely saying, and let us all learn how those are not the same things. It's very important that our voices be seen as relative and not defining. Cut the commentary. Roll the documentary. The table is all about the commentary. Some are complaining about debate being barred. I'd support going through the history, picking each person out who claimed a certain opinion related to cultural identity and bar them from this debate pending their production of a single direct relative source which meets WP:RS, is not relative to Wikipedia itself, and is not merely a singular opinion, a wave in the water. ~ R . T . G  12:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still listening to you. Two points, if you are addressing me specifically: (1)"You have gone out of your way to detail how Republic of Ireland is not official terminology" is not accurate. I have not done that. I realize it is official terminology, but terminology merely sometimes used in legal language about postal regulations, travel documentation, transport rules etc. to describe places on the island as distinguished from those within the confines of the United Kingdom on that island. It is not the name of the country. It would take about five minutes of reading and research for most to see that. (2)"I'd support going through the history, picking each person out who claimed a certain opinion related to cultural identity and bar them from this debate..."? Personally, I am opposed to barring anyone who does not violate standards of etiquette. Well written and thoughtful writing is not harmful, and as I wrote above it is only pixels on a screen. No sense suggesting an RS argument restriction against commentary when the ultimate RS about the name of the country, the Constitution of Ireland, is not being followed in the article title. My commentary is critical of the table, and also how the usage of "America" in this discussion is not very relevant, except perhaps when noting that United States of America is the constitutional name of the country but Republic of Ireland is only a seldom used "description". The failure of Wikipedia to follow the lead of the great majority of world bodies and publications, and even the Queen, which use the single name Ireland is just that: a failure. Sswonk (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See, you are rattling off there about stuff and hoping, just like everyone else, that what you say will be taken for the basis of credible and/or notable fact. I don't want to be relying on opinions and trustworthiness of random anonymous people for my facts in this debate, much in the same way that relying on that *in any other capacity* is universally accepted as *ridiculous and unthinkable* over the whole site *without exception* as a *fundamental pillar* of what this site is. Is that unreasonable? I don't want the *facts* to be *random* either. To add to that, I don't want to be examining list after list of links and trying to cross reference them with still more links buried in prose where I may or may not find the relevant and reliable information available. In each case, to have to evaluate everything individually through that mesh. Stop holding your footholds and start collaborating or are some of us not good enough for others to be seen co-operating with? Make it clear what that table is about, not just in commentary, or continue making personal speeches. Come on. I'll make personal speeches with you. Anyway, if you're still *listening to me*, you defined something as not official. Stop. End. "That's all," she wrote. "Insufficient," says I. See, if you do have awareness of the misconceptions floating aout the last time Sswonk, you are gaming the system. Otherwise you are a liability. Unguided incompetence, out of anything short of necessity, can equate sabbotage in effect. They tried all this knowledge restriction crap over here eons ago. everybody got somewhere between dead and danger. Now, if the streets are going to burn, that's what happens and we are at peace. There's still bad cops. There's still people blowing up bombs. They are an endangered species and why? Because the quality of support they have has changed. So, if official constitutions are so important to you, constitute your debate. Constitute the table. Stop conjuring. We might all get along, as is the spirit of constitutional policy, right? ~ R . T . G  16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of the statement from the Oireachtas using the term as a description in Article 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, having learned that in 2009. "If I say that my name is Costello and that my description is that of senior counsel, I think that will be clear to anybody who wants to know." Thanks. Sswonk (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I use the Wikipedia Monobook skin, which is black and green, because my computer is on a plasma screen and it gets very warm if there is a lot of white on the screen for a long time. I find it hard to see where one part of this table begins and another ends. ~ R . T . G  10:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are aware of a Costello comment you say? Who is supposed to make sense of that? Oh, you trust I will, eh? People are handing me waffles but they are reneging the plates. History is obscure, you can't just insist you are a historian. This is a library. Where is my fact sheet and guide to the books on this matter? You wouldn't expect even a leaving cert age child to be knowledgeable with all this stuff unless they were doing a specific project. I need my fact sheet. My old brain is probably mixing things up. When we talk of these old quotes and stuff, if I had the fact sheet open in the other window beside, I could be sure I wasn't making any mistakes when I made my whys and fors of a thing. Don't worry, I know who Costello was, and what that contextually vague statement is in relation to, but I had to go and find it and check to make sure. I want everyone to be able to check like that or else it should be invalid for us to take it. ~ R . T . G  10:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of those reading, per the statement "I want everyone to be able to check" here is a link to the debate in the 6th Seanad in 1948: Seanad Éireann - Volume 36 - 15 December, 1948: The Republic of Ireland Bill, 1948—Committee and Final Stages. The quotation is found toward the middle of that page under the small heading "SECTION 2", beginning with a question from Senator Helena Concannon, answer from the Taoiseach, John A. Costello of Dublin, statements from Senators Michael Colgan and Luke Joseph Duffy and others following. Sswonk (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to be personally insulting in that paragraph from yesterday but I do want to insult the table and lack of method. So I regret if there was some tone in this last paragraph but people seem more worried about the end than the means. Happier to draw closed than to outline a path. I know the central thing here is the naming policy and I have lots of opinions and concern for that, but I just appreciate methodology. I rather spend more time on the way to go about a thing than the way to wrap up for a close. As important as I think the history is I rarely shake the notion how important this container is also. ~ R . T . G  11:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one wasn't insulted. Sswonk (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This table really is full of some misleading information. The fact someone made an error on the FIFA website changes nothing, nobody here is claiming the official name of the state is Republic of Ireland... but it is fact FIFA use and continue to use Republic of Ireland. Also the claim that "Not consistent with many WP policies such as NPOV and imposes a rule of numbers where consensus fails." is complete rubbish and such blatant POV pushing should not be allowed in the table if it is to be taken seriously. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You should really do some research before commenting sometimes.
 * Feel free to edit the table and improve it. Where there are entries in the table that appear to be not relevant, I'd suggest that you leave that bullet in the table, but add a parenthetical comment after the bullet, explaining your concern (but not a rebuttal to the bullet ... put any rebuttal as a new bullet the appropriate row/column of the table).  That way, there are no edit wars.  Consensus may or may not happen later to remove the bullet. --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added a parenthetical comment after the FIFA bullet. I used Green font, so it can be seen as a meta-comment on the bullet's relevance. --Noleander (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I only added the subject matter on the name of the national football team as a rebuttal to the person who provided it as a reason to name the article. @BritishWatcher - at least FIFA corrected the mistake which had been on their website for a decade.  Maybe WP could learn from that?  --HighKing (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I definitely think 'Ireland' should be the island rather than the state or a disambiguation page, so that leave what happens to 'Republic of Ireland'. I'd no great objection if people really want to move it to 'Ireland (state)' or something like that but the table above doesn't seem to allow for just renaming the Republic of Ireland article. Personally I prefer Republic of Ireland as that's an officially sanctioned description. Dmcq (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It does include that option, which I added late Saturday. Readers might need to refresh their browser caches to view revised editions of the table. Click refresh, or type command-R or control-R, or hold the shift key when loading this page, depending on browser, see WP:REFRESH. Sswonk (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistency
I removed two irrelevant points about lock down and stability which have zero to do with consistency "Consistency – Does the proposed title follow the same pattern as those of similar articles?" That is the question posed at WP:TITLE. Sswonk (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional option
✅ |I took care of this Sswonk (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC) I think the table should include an additional row under "Ireland is..." : (row 3) the island with the state disambiguated by Ireland (state/country/republic). The current third row "Disambiguation page" would then be (row 4). The current table only allows moving RoI to Ireland, the status quo, or moving Ireland to a dab page. Unfortunately I am not feeling adept at wikicode at the moment and I will be away so if someone could please add those with empty bullet points to start. Thanks, – Sswonk (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sswonk: I disagree that adding a 4th option is a good idea.  The table originally had three options for what the "Ireland" article would be. The three options were mutually exclusive and unambiguous.  Under each option, there are numerous conceivable "sub-options", namely, how the other articles are named.  Adding those other sub-options into the table is very confusing, because it would greatly increase the size and complexity of the table.  More importantly, if the table is ever used for some kind of poll or survey, the "Ireland = island" !vote would be split over the two suboptions, so the vote counting would be difficult to assess.   Another problem is that  progress is best achieved by taking modest steps:  Step 1 might be deciding what the "Ireland" article is.  After consensus is reached on that,  Step 2 might be deciding what the name of the other article is (e.g. if Step 1 decides that "Ireland" is the island, then Step 2 might be deciding the name of the ROI article:  "Ireland (state)" vs "ROI").   --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this: What if we split-out the two sub-options for "Ireland  = island" (including the new "4th option" you created) into an independent sub-table, and leave the original table with just the three "Ireland = ??" options.  That way if Step 1 results in "Ireland = island" then this sub-table would then come into play to decide what the name of the other article should be.  Does that sound good? --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I split-out the two "what should name of ROI" rows out into a subtable (beneath the main table). I did not change the content at all.  The main table has the original 3 choices for what "Ireland" article should be.  If the choice there turns out to be "Ireland = island" or "Ireland = dab", then this new subtable (that Sswonk started) comes into play.  One final task remaining for this table organization is: In the main "Ireland = ?" table, the "Ireland = island" row should be scrutinized to make sure its pros/cons are not specific to a particular name of the state/country article.  The pros/cons in that row should be generic and handle any of the various possible names for the state/country article. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was about to disagree strongly, but that actually works at first glance. I will read it more thoroughly and if I still object I will remark about that. BTW, you originally spelled my user name incorrectly if you can fix that, thanks. Sswonk (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering this. My intention is to simplify things into discrete baby steps.  The more things get muddled, the harder it is to make progress.  (also, I fixed the spelling of your username ... sorry about that). --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You will need to revise the main table, as it mostly describes the "status quo" in the middle section. In other words, the "Pros" are mostly statements in defense of Republic of Ireland as the title, which is the main point of contention. I am starting to prefer four main options, for that really is the situation offered among the voluminous arguments here. Sswonk (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct that middle section does need to get updated. As for the "four options" in the table: the problem it that could lead to chaos.  For example, assume that "Ireland" title is used for the country/state.  Then we have "sub options" for what to name the article about the island:  "Ireland (island)", or "Irish civilization" (which is the choice made for china: Chinese civilization), or Irish history.   If we go the "4 options" route, we'd have to include 2 or 3 sub-options for the "Ireland = country", and then the table would have 5 or 6 rows, and it would be total chaos.  I'm suggesting that the main table should focus on the key question of "which article gets the coveted "Ireland" title?"   After that is decided, then we turn to the question of: what is the best title for the other article?    But trying to mix both questions in one table could render the entire exercise useless.  And, yes, the middle row of the top table needs to be fixed.  I dont have tim to do it now.  Can you help with that? --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Broad concept
RA, please find a way to state your "broad concept" views within the table structure that does not make it a new subsection of the cell. The table cells are all consistent, with five subheadings and you have added as sixth to one cell you label "Broad concept". I am not opposed to your adding the phrase or information, it is helpful, but to the addition of a sixth subheading which disrupts the expected pattern of summaries. I have moved it to "Impact to other articles" for now. Each cell should have the same five subheadings, giving a structured logical map of questions and answers to the reader. Thanks, – Sswonk (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a section to do with disambiguation to each of the cells and added points to each. I've also flipped the table around so that the status quo comes first (simply because I would have expected that). -- RA (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)