Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 28

Requested move: Republic of Ireland → Ireland (republic)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. I've read over this discussion a few times over the last couple of days and I've been surprised to see it slip slowly down the RM backlog. It seems clear that there is no consensus to move "Republic of Ireland" to either "Ireland (republic)" or "Ireland (state)" (or even "Ireland, Ireland" as suggested far below). Indeed, this is not so much a "no consensus" close as it is "consensus not to move". The only way such a clear majority could not be the consensus is if the oppose !votes were not based in Wikipedia policy. Having read the discussion, I do not believe that is the case here – many opposers point to guidelines and policies and they have not been refuted to the extent that they can be ignored. There is also the RfC tag to take into consideration (perhaps the reason why this has not been closed earlier). RfCs often last longer than the one week that RMs are supposed to, but I do not see that as a reason to keep this particular discussion open any longer. Since the RfC tag was added, discussion has slowed and the only new !votes have opposed the move – I do not think keeping this open any longer would result in the consensus changing. Note: this is a non-admin closure and, as such, if anyone contests it, I will revert and we can wait for an admin to close the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Republic of Ireland → Ireland (republic)

– The current title of this article may mislead readers into thinking that the term "Republic of Ireland" is a long-form official name, equivalent to "Republic of France" or "Kingdom of Spain". In fact, the Irish government has discouraged use of this term for some time, as documented at Republic of Ireland (term). The official English-language name of the country is simply "Ireland", according to the Irish constitution (1937). "Ireland" is also the country's name as a UN member. The Associated Press Stylebook, the most influential journalism styleguide, recommends that the country be referred to as "Ireland" in most situations. The corresponding article in Britannica is titled "Ireland". This article notes prominently that the single word "Ireland" is the official name of the country. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. This purpose is not advanced if incorrect names are used, however natural they might be. Kauffner (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move proposal for the Republic of Ireland can finally be entertained. Should this article be retitled Ireland (republic)? The single word "Ireland" is the common name, the constitutional name, and the UN member name of this nation. However, this lemma is currently used as the title of another article that would be difficult to move, so disambiguation of some sort is required. The current title may mislead readers into thinking that "Republic of Ireland" is the official long-form version of the country's name. The term "Republic of Ireland" was for a long time official British usage, but it was dropped after the Good Friday agreement in 1998. The title Ireland (state) has also been suggested. Kauffner (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support, as nom Kauffner (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as it's about a republic named Ireland. A republic that happens to share the same name as the island, which it's on. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Ireland (country) is acceptable - since we've got Georgia (country) as an article title.GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ireland, all 32 counties of it, is considered one country (see Rugby Union, cricket, historical usage, etc.). Ireland (country) would not be a compromise. Ireland (state) might be, though I am staying clear of this debate. Mac Tíre  Cowag  16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't accept 'country' as the description of the island. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is asking you to, it's not a question of whether everyone agrees to it or not (naturally there will be people who don't, just as there will be people who don't accept 'country' as a description for the Republic), but simply that it is a matter of fact that it is itself ambiguous as it can be, and is, also used to refer to the concept it is being proposed to disambiguate from, which means that it would be a pretty unhelpful kind of disambiguation. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then there's only one other solution (besides the status quo). Move the republic article to Ireland (state), the island article to Ireland (island) & the disambiguation article to Ireland -- those were my 2009 recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - in the spirit of Michael Collins, though hopefully without the same personal consequences. Anything is better than the current mail-order muck. Dickdock (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support for reasons given in my statement. I support equally Ireland (state). I strongly oppose Ireland (country) since that is the island and all its people - cf Rugby. --Red King (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC) On further thought, no. The state article should be 'Ireland' and the island article should be Ireland (island). As per most other wikipedias and the China precedent. --Red King (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The China article is not an equivalent to Republic of Ireland - it is an article about China, not just the People's Republic of China, which covers Chinese history from the beginning as well as language, culture and so forth. If we were to have an article entitled "Ireland" covering similar material, such as the French Wikipedia article Irlande_(pays), it would be fine by me. But it wouldn't represent a move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland. The current article at Ireland is, simply, about Ireland, which is fine by me too. History, language, culture, geography and all. It's not just about physical geography, it's about a country (in one common sense of the word), so to move it to Ireland (island) would in my view be quite wrong. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you actually loooked at the China article recently? Following much discussion, the PRC article has been renamed China and new articles such Chinese culture created to recognise 'All-China'. The China article begins This page is about the People's Republic of China. For the sovereign state also known as Taiwan, see Republic of China. --Red King (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, RedKing, but have you? The first section after the intro is 'etymology', the second is 'prehistory', the third 'early dynastic rule', and so forth. None of these relate to the People's Republic. Neither is the 'culture' section restricted to the Communist period, though it does focus on it. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the China comparison but I have no desire to put a bunch of missiles on the border with Northern Ireland or to try and bully everyone in the UN into not recognizing the existence of Taiwan. Perhaps WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is enough about this? Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, but favor "Ireland (state)"

 * 1) Oppose per Evertype and Scolaire below, should be (state) and also discussion premature.Sswonk (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ' Support' — Although the Government of Ireland does in fact officially use the term "Republic of Ireland" in some cases, it has made it clear in practice that it prefers the constitutional name Ireland. It does not call itself the "Government of the Republic of Ireland". Maps, websites, publications, style guides—our reliable sources—are in agreement that Ireland, whether it is somewhat ambiguous or not, is the name and title used for the sovereign state. Since this site, en.wikipedia.org, is an outlier in this case and since the title does have the potential to mislead readers, I support this move . Sswonk (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose but would support a move to Ireland (state). --Evertype·✆ 11:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd only weak oppose (country). Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) First preference for "Ireland (state)", second preference for "Ireland (republic)". Given that 'Ireland' is ambiguous and has to be disambiguated, it is far more common for the governmental institution which operates in 26 counties of Ireland to be referred to as a 'state'. The term 'Republic of Ireland' is one used far more frequently in a British context and does raise concerns that it endorses a point of view, but no British sensibilities are offended by referring to the 'state'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the purported bias - or endorsement of a bias - of the term "Republic of Ireland" towards a British POV, that is not very tenable. Never minding that the term is the official description of the Irish state, we can look to what terms are used by people from either Britain (UK) or Ireland (ROI) and the frequency with which they use these terms.
 * For example, search trends for "Republic of Ireland" on Google rank (unsurprisingly) Ireland as the top location that uses the term in searches. However, note the gap in distance between searches from the Britain and Ireland. In searches on Google, Ireland is followed by Nigeria in use of the term. The United Kingdom, despite it's comparative size, comprises on a small fraction of searches for the term.
 * Google Trends for "Republic of Ireland"
 * Now, contrast that with searches for "Southern Ireland". In that instance, the UK features far more prominently. In fact, the UK almost equals Ireland in number of searches for the term:
 * Google Trends for "Southern Ireland"
 * Interesting too is to contrast searches for "Southern Ireland" vs. searches for "Republic of Ireland" within the UK and within Ireland:
 * "Southern Ireland" vs. "Republic of Ireland" use in UK-based Google searches
 * "Southern Ireland" vs. "Republic of Ireland" use in Ireland-based Google searches
 * -- RA (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice work, RA. And furthermore, in the results for "Republic of Ireland", Belfast (in Northern Ireland) is the predominant source assigned to the UK by Google - whereas "Southern Ireland" brings up a much greater propotion of results from Britain. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks. I think you show quite conclusively that the British government has better mind control over people in Ireland than it does over the people in Britain ;-) Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there is obviously a technical glich in those results, compare here and here. But more to the point, you must realize that people typing in "Republic of Ireland" as a search term are most likely looking for information about the football team. Kauffner (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you make that assumption? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that so many are looking for the football team but I don't see why you think there is some glitch or that the graph you got shows anything different from the ones before. Dmcq (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the '-' sign works as normal on these Google pages, this suggests that they're not looking for the football team at all. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the very bottom and you'll see a lot are still for soccer or football. I wonder if those searches may be more recent. I'm surprised there isn't more about the economy (now there's the state of Ireland, it is in a state of chassis) Dmcq (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Trends shows not one person in Ireland searching for "southern Ireland" in the last four years, which I assume is a glitch. If you Google, the top result is about the football team. To put a "-" on the Insights page would refer to search terms. That is to say, you took out the cases where the word "football" was typed in by the user. Kauffner (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that people in the Republic really would search much for southern Ireland - to people there, that suggests places like Cork and Kerry, and I imagine people would be more likely to use those names themselves, or more likely still of the southern province, Munster. You can see that most of the searches for 'Southern Ireland' from the Republic were in fact originating from southern areas like Cork and Kerry.
 * Re the Google search - not when I do it... when I search Google for 'Republic of Ireland -wikipedia' the first result is the Irish government website and only three of the top ten results are football-related.
 * In any case, I think RA's point has been fairly well established - this data strongly suggests that the term 'Republic of Ireland' is widely used in the Republic and does not reflect a British perspective. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And the second result is the government's home page, www.gov.ie... I'd suggest very few people in Ireland google "Republic of Ireland" looking for football news - they'll either go to the FAI or a news site, or google "Ireland v Andorra" to read how our English premiership-playing STG£50k/week heroes demolished the part-time butchers, bakers and candlestick-makers of Andorra, 2-0, in front of a massive crowd of 800... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus guys. Yous are clueless. It's showing you the Search Volume Index, ie relative not absolute data. How did yous rationalize away Dublin appearing down the list after Belfast, Galway, Limerick, Cork??? Not that you care. You will only ever see what you want to see. Dickdock (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. "Republic of Ireland" wins as per WP:COMMONNAME, naturalness and ease of usage. The evidence presented on this page (including numerous archived discussions) shows that the Irish government wishes the state to be known as "Ireland" for official purposes, but itself uses the term "Republic of Ireland" on the relatively few occasions where it is necessary to distinguish between the state and Ireland (the country/island) as a whole - as it is, in this case, for Wikipedia. The term also has the advantage of being officially recognized as "the description of the state" in Irish legislation (and presumably, if the Irish government actually found the term objectionable, they would have repealed this legislative provision). ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - WP:TITLE gives 5 areas to be considered when naming an article. So is Ireland (republic) more Recognisable than RoI? No. Is it more Natural? Most definitely not. Is it more Precise? No. Concise even? No. What about Consistency? I think the vast majority of country article do not require piping in every article. #fail. An absolutely appalling proposal. Fmph (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC))
 * By this logic, we should get rid of all parenthetical disambiguators. Surely "planet of Mercury" is a more natural construction than Mercury (planet). So many responses to this RM are written as if the editor never saw a disambiguator before, so let me explain the concept. The name of this state is Ireland. This is the legal name, the official name, and the common name. But as Wikipedia already has an article of this title, we must include some additional text to allow the software to distinguish the two. As this convention is peculiar to Wiki, whether or not any RS refers to the subject as "Ireland (republic)" is irrelevant. If you have spent any time on Wiki, you know that this is a very common problem and that thousands of titles are done this way. Kauffner (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually thats pretty much exactly what WP:PRECISE says we should do.
 * i) Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose a different, alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title .... If this is not possible:
 * ii) Parenthetical disambiguation: ...
 * So we should only use parenthetical disambiguation if there is no alternative. In this case there are a number of alternatives. One is to leave it as it is. Another is to move it somewhere else. IMHO that should be at Ireland, if it is going to be moved. Then move Ireland to somewhere else. Fmph (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Readers will not be misled if they read the very first line of the lede and/or look at the infobox.  The Government of Ireland offically uses the term "Republic of Ireland" in many cases, and it is in fact the legal description of the state.  The Irish government has not discouraged use of the term and no such "discouragement" can be found at Republic of Ireland (term).  They simply use the official long form name "Ireland" when no disambiguation is necessary, and "Republic of Ireland" when it is necessary.  Like Wikipedia.  "Republic of Ireland" meets WP:COMMONNAME; it is a natural disambiguator, much more likely to be searched for than the artificial construct "Ireland (republic)", which breaches WP:DISAMBIG. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder what articles you read. The impression I get from the RoI article is that RoI is the full name of the state and "Ireland" is some kind of short form. You have to look at the footnotes to find out that "Ireland" is the constitutional name. Republic of Ireland (term) has several examples of official guidelines to "avoid" RoI, even for disambiguation. Kauffner (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first line of Republic of Ireland: "Ireland[7], described as the Republic of Ireland,[8] is a state in Europe..." is fairly clear to me, as is the prominent infobox note "Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland declares that the name of the state is Ireland; Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declares that the description of the state is the Republic of Ireland." Republic of Ireland (term) has three examples, the most recent dating from 1963! It certainly no longer seems to be policy - which you seem to be ignoring. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The current opening assumes that the reader understands that the word "described" refers to the 1948 legislation. That may not be "fairly clear" to everyone. Kauffner (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Per Bastun. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Number of reasons, firstly reasoning for move is floored (see File:Envelope from Irish Revenue Commissioners.jpeg), secondly "Ireland (republic)" is a highly unlikely search term, thirdly as per the above discussion there clear consensus tor the status quo, so lets WP:Snow close this. Mt  king  (edits)  19:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Sounds too much like a disambiguation page which would be good to distinguish between the these two republics - Ireland and Ireland. Mabuska (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per many above. In particular, with respect to the Article titles, as ComhairleContaeThirnanOg points out, Republic of Ireland wins for recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency over Ireland (republic). I also think that worrying over whether readers will believe the title of the page is the legal "name" of the state, as opposed to the legal "description" of the state, is over-stated hand wringing. The legal "name" and the legal "description" is given in the first line and an entire section (the first section in the article) deals with this distinction in depth. Even at that, however, if a reader did leave the article without knowing the legal "name" of the state, it would not be the end of the world. Mixing up this distinction is not the greatest of errors or the most important thing to know about the subject. -- RA (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Where on earth from anything abve did you get the idea that (republic) was a good idea instead of something like (state) or (country)? Not that I'd be particularly keen on them anyway. And would we still be able to put Republic of Ireland when the island is also being talked about or what would happen about that? I really can't see if it matters one whit whether a person who can't be bothered reading the first line of the lead or understand it thinks the name is Republic of Ireland - and my experience is that people like that will always find a way of misunderstanding whatever you say. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The AP uses "Irish Republic." The current government seems to like "The Irish State". Who uses "country of Ireland" or "Irish country" to disambiguate between North and South? Kauffner (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If "Republic of Ireland" is wrong and misleading for readers, as you say, then AP's style guide is even more wrong and misleading. Your evidence for use of "The Irish State" is a) irrelevant to this discussion; b) a website's menu heading; and c) used far less often than "Republic of Ireland". Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of Wikipedia disambiguation and (country) would be the obvious one for that. State is more for things like Georgia the U.S. state as opposed to the country. Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Country" fails for disambiguation purposes, in my opinion, because it is itself ambiguous and can be used to refer to all of Ireland as well - certainly plenty of people use it that way, and I would suspect there are probably plenty who would refer to both Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as a 'country' in different contexts. 'Ireland (country)' would certainly make me expect an article about all of Ireland, not about the Republic - even though I am from the Republic myself. I imagine it would probably have the same effect a fortiori on many readers from Northern Ireland and possibly from Britain. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as the British government are concerned, England, Scotland, Wales and – yes – Northern Ireland are all countries, despite not being sovereign states. It's too ambiguous. JonC Talk 14:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose It's unnatural and violates WP:DISAMBIG. JonC Talk 06:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the many reasons already noted above. Mooretwin (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The only useful moves is Republic of Ireland to Ireland in combination with and after the move of Ireland to Ireland (island). Night of the Big Wind  talk  09:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I do prefer Republic of Ireland to all other choices in this particular circumstance regardless, but I'd like to point out something most of you probably won't like to understand, I believe that Republic (Ireland) would have been better than Ireland (republic). I guess, in e-space, categories are more important to me than monuments. I like to see full respect to anything, good or bad, but my love for Wikipedia is not that people can dump things here and how those things might be placed, it's that they can pick them up and how easily those things might be sifted through. I'd have a conveyor belt of everything system any day before I'd have a buckstop system on one day. I know, doesn't make much sense or something but it does to me. ~ R . T . G  16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. "Ireland (republic)" would only make sense to the uninformed reader if if there was a contemporaneous "Ireland (kingdom)". It doesn't make clear the distinction between the political entity and the larger country. Scolaire (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Opening an RM to a new title in the middle of a lengthy discussion - especially when the nominator hasn't taken part in that discussion for nearly two weeks - is totally against the spirit of collaboration on Wikipedia. This is the third time Kauffner has done this since 17 September. Scolaire (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose; a fuller, unambiguous title should be preferred rather than one that has to have disambiguation brackets. MTC (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. 2 in favour, 18 against. WP:SNOW? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, there's definitely no consensus for a move. GoodDay (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's definitely no consensus for THIS move. Fmph (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant (just missed a word). GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Full name is more descriptive. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, "Republic of Ireland" is not the "full name" of the sovereign state Ireland. Please see below. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This title is the best way to distinguish this Ireland from any other. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES. No substantive difference. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The current setup has existed for many years. If one of the article names was to be changed now it would be used to justify additional changes, which is the long term goal of some editors here who seem to think a country that has existed for less than 100 years and does not control the whole territory of an island should have superiority over the island and claim ownership over the whole island and its history. There is no need to make a change, the present setup works fine. This is the second attempt to alter the page setups since the 2 year ban came to an end, huge amounts of arguments have taken place above going over the same old arguments. if this continues we really do need the ban extended another two years. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What a load of POV horse-shit. The present name is problematic for many people, whether you agree with them or not. Ireland (state) would avoid this simply, and accurately, and without fuss. That's it. Simple. The huge problem many people have would be done away with. No more argument. But YOU, BritishWatcher, sing from the same hymnsheet you sang from two years ago. You like the status quo, because you dismiss the concerns of people who do not like it. Compromise, simple compromise, ought to lead you to recognize that if a name you consider neutral and accurate is problematic for some, another neutral and accurate name could be chosen. But no. You give us POV horse-shit. No wonder I don't edit articles about Ireland any longer. -- Evertype·✆ 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike 2yrs ago, I've a prob with Ireland (state), because of Georgia (state). -- GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify the problem you have? Georgia (state) redirects to Georgia, a disambiguation page. The title of the article about the U.S. state is Georgia (U.S. state). How is that relevant here, GoodDay? Sswonk (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's at Georgia (U.S. state), in that case - no probs with Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you again too Evertype. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear BritishWatcher. The phrase "Republic of Ireland" claims no less ownership over the whole island than "Ireland" does. It's just as geographically extensive. Sorry to point that out. The phrase would have to be "Republic of Southern Ireland" to address your concerns. Or maybe "Republic of Southern and North Western Ireland". That seems pretty accurate, without getting too picky. Though perhaps then "Northern Ireland" should be moved to "North Eastern Ireland", so as not to be geographically overextending ourselves in the opposite direction, which I'm sure concerns you just as much. Right. Good. So leave "Ireland" as it. Move "Republic of Ireland" to "Republic of Southern and North Western Ireland". And move "Northern Ireland" to "North Eastern Ireland". Sorted. Dickdock (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry i think you misunderstand what i was trying to say. My point was not about the name Republic of Ireland claiming ownership over the whole island or the fact the name Ireland does that. The point was the country article should not get the primary spot Ireland because it can not claim ownership over all of Ireland's history and all of its territory. The island is the primary topic not the country. I believe if this proposal to change the name to include country/state went ahead, it would be used by those who want the country at Ireland because the consensus and status quo that has lasted for many years will suddenly be broken. Personally i dont have a big problem with Ireland (country) or Ireland (State), i just prefer the status quo and strongly oppose any attempt by a small number of editors to have the country take Ireland position. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. My apologies. I'm disappointed, though, as that was the only point I imagined had any value. The point about the existence of a shadowy group with a cunning plan to take ownership of all the history and territory and so forth - I can't really comment on, not having access to your intelligence. As an aside, might I pick you up on "consensus and status quo"? There is a status quo. There is no consensus. That there is or has ever been a consensus is one of the two most pernicious and dishonest fantasies prevailing here. (The other one being of course that given the status quo there could ever be a consensus.) Dickdock (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh I thought I was just helping write an encyclopaedia, not part of a cabal determining the fate of the world for the next thousand years! ;-) On the business of consensus, that does not have to be total and as far as I can see there is a pretty clear consensus to use Republic of Ireland. If a motion had that sort of support at Stormont it would easily pass no matter how you cut it. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per ComhairleContaeThirnanOg's concise summary of how "Republic of Ireland" wins per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in opposing this particular move, though I would point out that there are problems with that "concise summary". As has very often been the case, supporters of the continued use of "Republic of Ireland" as the article title assume their conclusion in their premise, the assumption being that "as a title, it works". I would agree with ComhairleContaeThirnanOg on the government's infrequent usage "where it is necessary to distinguish between the state and Ireland (the country/island) as a whole" (as a disambiguator within text) and then stop, because "- as it is, in this case, for Wikipedia" is as the title of the article. This is where Wikipedia remains an outlier and where, due to the strong potential for misleading readers as to the name of the state, it has nevertheless failed to properly consider  the difference, even amid strong and frequent opposition. There are alternatives available for the title or article structure which do not have nearly the likelihood of either misinforming or frustrating readers as "Republic of Ireland" has and does. Sswonk (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, after looking over the arguments above, I believe the current name is the best setup.  Night w   08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per above.- J.Logan`t : 09:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, COMMONNAME says ROI is the best name for it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. COMMONNAME describes "common names" replacing formal ones, such as William Jefferson Clinton --> Bill Clinton, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations --> Rhode Island, Cavia porcellus --> Guinea Pig. Here, a term verifiably unused by two dozen of our reliable sources (see ) and used only infrequently by the Government of Ireland (see ) is replacing the true common, preferred and recognizable name. Reference to COMMONNAME as justification of the current title is as misleading as the title itself, and does not trump core content policies violated by this title; this use as a title of an article is essentially a Wikipedia-specific concoction. Sswonk (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Leave it as it is, the current setup with Republic of Ireland as the state and Ireland as the island is the best of a set of imperfect options. Some strange arguments above, for example it hardly seems to be a Wikipedia-specific concoction when I get more than 31 million non-Wikipedia ghits. Andrewa (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I am not supporting this move either. I am however rebutting the assumption that the current title is "the best". Second, by leaving out some important words I used in the quotation within your comment here you are misstating my case. Read it as it was written, without leaving out the words which are essential here, within these discussions: as a title of an article. Now, I will repeat it: "this use as a title of an article is essentially a Wikipedia-specific concoction". Andrewa, I obviously do not know you personally and do try to assume good faith, but I find it impossible not to request that you apologize for that dismissive comment. As innocent as it might have been, it represents the antithesis of what is expected by me: careful consideration of the facts. I have very carefully and calmly stated with tables and links and thousands of words why this website's use of "Republic of Ireland" as a title is wrong. You seek within the space of one sentence and hopelessly naive application of a general Google search of the phrase used in any context at all, and not specifically as a title to a narrative about the state, to proclaim that my work is "strange". It is not opposed by millions of search results, and I resent that characterization. You are an administrator, supposedly that gives you some sort of presumed status of acting in the best interest of the project. To do so, I suggest you spend the ten to fifteen minutes it may take to read the factually illustrated arguments about other wikipedia projects and above about worldwide usage as a title. Therein you'll find a history of how this started here which has perpetuated an incorrect title that has high potential to mislead as it may be thought by readers to represent to name of the state. Please read the arguments, don't just glance at and dismiss them. This website can do much better, it is demonstrably an outlier in this usage. Have you not once considered why that is? I hope that you will and recognize that one-sentence dismissals and lack of attention to the facts can only make matters worse in that regard. I am very serious about expecting that apology. Sswonk (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your claim was and is laughable; Those extra words do nothing to save it. Did your own research for your latest reply include following my link to Google? Did it really show no pages that use the phrase as a title? I got one as the very first ghit, and several on the first page; Your results may vary but I'm surprised they vary by so much. If you think that my comments reflect poor research I regret that, but I don't think they do; I have read and reread the sections to which you link above and they both miss the point IMO. Yes, I think long and hard about how to improve Wikipedia, but my conclusions seem to be opposite to yours. I think we need to strive for a less adversarial culture, with shorter and more productive discussions. See WP:creed. Andrewa (talk) 07:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In a world where typing four words and clicking "Google search" constitutes research, or using a userpage at Iol.ie to rebut evidence including a statement at the style guide of the European Union, or relying on the acrimonious five word statements of a collection of people who identify themselves with names that sound like video game characters over the serious evidence shown from dozens of the world's most prominent organizations, Andrewa finds the truth laughable. Not only do you not once attempt to address my main concern, rebutting the assumption that the current title is "the best", you also continue in your attempt to bring derision on me, someone you do not know. In great part because people such as you are labeled "administrators" here, and produce bullshit such as what you just wrote to justify such thoughtless, dismissive and cronyism-ridden systems as the RM and AfD voting processes, and titles such as the one you support, this website itself wins the description you attempt to apply to the facts I presented: laughable. Sswonk (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tsk. Those 31,300,000 are just doing it wrong. Or part of the conspiracy. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your presence at these debates over the course of two and a half years has been marked by a singular meanness which, while I can tolerate it, I can't say that it is helpful to this endeavor. The intellectual level of this latest remark is beyond description. Sswonk (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose this proposal and oppose retention of 'Republic of Ireland' as article title.
The state article should be 'Ireland' and the island article should be Ireland (island). As per most other wikipedias and the China precedent. The term 'Republic of Ireland' is an entirely inappropriate title to use in an international article encyclopedia, as explained by Sswonk. --Red King (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Until a consensus is reached on that observation, there's little chance of the article being moved. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This was "Option B" in the 2009 poll. It made it to the third round where it ended up with 32 votes out of 204. That's 16 percent, or fourth choice among six. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't see the state as being as important as the island any more than being Irish means you were born in the state. Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kaffner, the fact that interested contributors got in wrong does not mean that disinterested admins will get it wrong this time. ::Dmcq, please read the discussion re China. The situation is exactly analogous. Just as the the state, China, is not all of China but nevertheless is recognised by the name China - Ireland, the state, is not all of Ireland but is recognised by the name Ireland everywhere except the UK media and the present article name. As with China, we will need an 'Irish culture' article. --Red King (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, Red King, when you say "an international article"? ~ R . T . G  13:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have written 'encyclopedia'. I have corrected. --Red King (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, 'Ireland' is the WP:COMMONNAME used internationally for the state, with the UK being the sole exception (usage in Ireland is exceptional). --Red King (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And it is also the WP:COMMONNAME used internationally, and in Ireland, for Ireland. So your observation is not very relevant: we still have to either disambiguate (as for Korea) or combine the articles (as for China or Irlande_(pays)). And if we are choosing to disambiguate, then it's a fact that when people, both in Ireland and outside, are trying to distinguish between the independent Irish state on the one hand and Ireland as a whole on the other, they generally do so by referring to the former as "southern Ireland", "the Republic of Ireland", "Eire", or something of the sort. Fortunately for us, one of these is in common use in Ireland and elsewhere for the purpose and is recognised as the 'description of the State' by Irish law. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've shown multiple times that this in incorrect. "Republic of Ireland" is not a common name used internationally except within the minds of supporters of the Wikipedia titling scheme "status quo" who have made that their hymn within this project. Nowhere else is it used as an article title, and without question its use as such is discouraged by the state, in writing. No state since the UK finally relented the practice in 1998 has attempted to use "Republic of Ireland" to present diplomatic credentials to Ireland. That's because there is not a state named "Republic of Ireland", except in the minds of the aged schoolchildren remembering it from Ordnance Survey maps long ago who apparently guide this type of thinking. No matter how loudly or often you proclaim it, you can not make such fiction fact. The presence of the false name on computer screens that display the title of the en.wikipedia.org article are the only "common" usage of the phrase as a title in the world, at that is done against the core content policies of the site through belief and dissemination of falsehoods such as your professed beliefs above, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg. You have the right to use that false name to describe yourself here, but this project should not have a right to capriciously assign falsehoods to fact. Sswonk (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As that has little to do with what I wrote and, as far as I can see, a lot more to do with a mythological reconstruction of the situation in your own imagination, I do not think there is much point in me replying. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ComhairleContaeThirnanOg it is directed at what you wrote because you follow the same leap of logic that started all of this: it goes, "we here in Britain and Ireland need to disambiguate Ireland the country from Ireland the island, and to do so we must use the term 'Republic of Ireland', that's the best way." (<--- leap) Perhaps true within some of your own experiences, I can grant you that. However, to substantiate that statement you then make the incorrect and unsubstantiated statement that it is "common". It is not. The most common term used to disambiguate on the island is "the Republic", that is common within Ireland. "Republic of Ireland" can just as often mean the football team as the country, it's "the Republic" you are using in speech, but we can't use that as a title. Also, and this is the worst of it, you don't understand that in most of the world "Ireland" means both state and island and can be used as both with relative ease. There isn't a stigma or an all-consuming "need to disambiguate" that forces these articles to be split and titled in the awkward way they are here. I am truly frustrated and upset that I can't get you and others to understand, your view is narrow in scope. Ireland is the sovereign state, Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom consisting of six counties that opted out of Ireland the state. Simple as that. In respect to the non-hypocritical application of core principles, the preponderance of outside sources do not share the view that you and others have expressed here. Don't reply if not comfortable, but that is why I continue to challenge your view on the application of COMMONNAME. For the record, I know you have stated you are not currently on the island, but you speak from experience and are from there, so for the sake of illustration I consider your arguments to be along the same line as others from thon islands as you wrote. Sswonk (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sswonk, I think the answers to all your points here are already to be found several times in what I have already written in reply to you, so I won't tire other readers by repeating myself again except to emphasize one point. That is, that for technical reasons it is not possible for multiple Wikipedia articles to have the same name. Therefore, unless the articles can be combined in some way, there is a need to disambiguate. There is no consensus in favour of merging the articles: this option received only 8 of 234 votes, I think, in the 2009 poll. Unless such a consensus emerges, it will remain necessary to disambiguate. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on poll closing

 * Winter weather advisory: why has this not been snow closed? The only supporting vote outside the nom has seen fit to agree that it be so ended, and the tally is 2 to 21 in opposition. Rearranging the votes and tidying the formatting does nothing to change that. Recasting it as an RFC qualifies as pointy and bureaucratic, and slightly improper, let's close this now. Sswonk (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SNOW is only an essay, not a guideline. There is another famous Wiki essay, the WP:Jamaican_Bobsled_Team_clause, which basically argues the opposite. The guidelines say there is supposed be a seven day voting period. I had trouble getting the RFC to work before, but now that it's working we can give it a chance to do its thing. This issue has been on ice for two years. We can wait a few more days and make sure it gets done right. So let's close this thing up on Monday, nice and regular. What would be really great is if this time we could get it closed by somebody who knows what they are doing. Kauffner (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see below under Bastun. Sswonk (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While I'd prefer WP:SNOW to apply, I've no particular objection to leaving this open until Monday (depite the fact that we've only very recently had a poll with a clear consensus to preserve the status quo). I would however point out that this was opened as a RM, not a RFC. Changing it half way through seems... odd. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And I would prefer that this be closed whenever as the last poll on the naming of Republic of Ireland for 2011. The likes of this being the least likely to gain support, using it as a measuring stick being ludicrous and the likes of another straw man or two being proposed all are symptoms of the disease of "status quo"itis spreading aggressively here. Of course that will bring as many people as can be brought here by a near-zero supported RM, turned into an RFC for further broadcast across Wikipedia, and as a straw man severely pummeled into a pulver, will serve notice upon all who visit from outside that the SQEOD (for those arriving late, "Status Quo, end of discussion") is large and in charge, oui? N'est ce pas? I reiterate, continued discussion is needed. Several points need ironing out and to be true collaboration nothing gets solved by holding disjointed contests. Why hold another and wait until BW blurts out how much this shows we who disagree with the title all need our mouths taped shut and a spanking? Nasty, thieving, anti-stability, snake-eating, stinking-breath swine who are clearly insulting Jimbo and the heavenly hosts, trampling on capitalism and divine goodness, and soiling the baronet's linens while he's out. A pox we are, shame, shame, etc. until I gather myself up off the floor from laughing so hard. At any rate, there is potential for setting up a single poll early next year on two choices, not six as there were in 2009 and not a disjointed and confusing effort as the three so far have been here. HighKing found faults, hasn't returned, Scolaire dislikes this, I see it as pointless. In 2009 there were position statements just too many choices. Here we have nothing but chaotic talking at odds and past each other, entrenchment of an unbelievable scale among "status quo" supporters, and at the same time a title that is still flawed and strongly challenge by argument, if not votes. As I have remarked in the past couple of weeks a vote is an utter waste; these non-productive things need to be avoided through calmness and discussion, not scrums among chums, ready to flatten the next scarecrow. No more RMs please, I ask of the closing party. Not in this unstructured and contentious season. Talk only until 2012, no more votes this year. Sswonk (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time there were multiple options using a voting system that progressively eliminated the least favoured ones. Why restrict people to two choices? And who gets to choose what the two choices are? I don't see what's to be gained by restricting the discussion thus - and you don't seem to have liked how that worked out here! ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Proportional representation, or STV votes that work with PR, is practically unknown as a voting system in the United States. That confused the process in 2009 and seeks to split votes against the "status quo" thus favoring it. I am not advocating restricting discussion on options, ComhairleContaeThirnanOg, nice try; I am asking to stop having these poorly organized contests while discussion is ongoing. "And who gets to choose what the two choices are?", everyone does but calmly and without severe deadlines. No more votes in 2011. Thoughts? Sswonk (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sswonk, it's very hard to keep track of what you are and aren't in favour of, because just above you said that "there is potential for setting up a single poll early next year on two choices, not six as there were in 2009", and now you object to me saying that restricting people to two options (despite the fact that there are obviously a much larger number of possibilities) is not ideal.
 * Personally, I'm not convinced that any process of gradual elimination will any better than the instant elimination involved in STV. Is it not likely to just force anyone who wants to have a say to stay involved in a much longer process? Really a different kind of voting system, such as the Condorcet method, might be better - because it's quite possible that an option which is not many people's first preference might represent a compromise that would nevertheless be acceptable to many. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's hard for you to keep track in part because you might read into things or "hear what you want to hear". Both of the things I wrote are consistent with skepticism over STV but not over eliminating poor choices and unlikely candidates through discussion. I think, for example, it's pretty safe to assume that "Ireland (republic)" doesn't deserve further consideration in that regard. No matter, we can get closer to on the same page over time. You wrote "what's to be gained by restricting the discussion thus", I responded "I am not advocating restricting discussion on options." That's really it, discussion is fine but having a vote similar to 2009 I don't want. In fact, a tribunal might be the way to go, no votes but something like high court recommendation could help to defeat the tyranny of the majority, which has prevailed in keeping the current title even in the face of a great deal of contrary titling and usage by the outside reliable sources we rely on. I just think that the previous system of six choices (and Fmph wants to add a seventh) favors the "status quo" because it splits votes and some voters, possibly enough to make the difference, don't realize that any vote for the "status quo" under that system, even as a seventh preference, will increase its chance of prevailing. Drive-by voters, not bothering to contemplate the details we've discussed, will tend to hedge and throw in a preference for "status quo" before exiting. You know that happens, and I am not showing ABF, it's reality. I am thinking about all of it, but less rather than more choices, and possible even a China type naming committee might be the only way to finally have the wisest title prevail. Sswonk (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, the idea that "any vote for the "status quo" under that system, even as a seventh preference, will increase its chance of prevailing" - no, of course not. Any preference will only increase the thing's chances of prevailing over the things that are put below it. Secondly, if voters, whether driving or on bicycles, cast a particular preference, what's wrong with that? One has to assume they have a reason for doing so. That's a benefit, not a fault of the system. If someone who does not share your Manichaean view sees the status quo as worse than all but one of the alternatives, it's all the better if the voting system allows their preference to count. Actually, I think you are overly fixated with the status quo. The status quo is one of any number of alternatives, yet you seem to have elevated it into some sort of inverse Holy of Holies. It's quite feasible that there are people who would prefer a given alternative A, but think that the status quo is better than alternatives B and C. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I disagree there, but have to study it for a bit. A sixth preference vote for "F" got counted all the way to the end in my mind, not "only...over the things that are put below it". I will look it up. Sswonk (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ComhairleContaeThirnanOg, you are a nice person it seems, but for me "Republic of Ireland" is not an acceptable title for the article about the sovereign state. Anyone can diminish that and dismiss me with an "IDONTLIKEIT" bluelink (irrelevant, that portion of an essay is about posting simplistic rationales at AfDs, the antithesis of the highly detailed, thousands of words I have submitted here) or put a psychoanalytic bent on it and call it a "fixation". Holy of Holies, it is, to the SQEOD group you've been interacting with. Several are hell bent on moving one inch over RoI apparently because they felt very insulted by some of the arguments. I don't know of a better way to combat that severe irrational intransigence than to pound away at it time and again until the cracks start to appear. Sswonk (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the technical point that, "Proportional representation, or STV votes that work with PR, is practically unknown as a voting system in the United States": In the USA it is known as instant-runoff voting. It is common enough that we have an article on it: Instant-runoff voting in the United States. Indeed, an example of where a form of instant-run-off is used is the TV show, American Idol.
 * Additionally, some of the voting systems used on the en.wiki and the Wikimedia Foundation are far more complicated and obscure. I don't believe the voting system we used was biased against American contributors. -- RA (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First I sincerely want you to trust that I am not trying to sound smug, or lecture you. But I really need to answer that question with another, RA. The question is: do you know how many jurisdictions there are in the United States? There are 50 states. There are 275 cities with 100,000 persons or more within their corporate limits. There are 435 districts of the U.S. House of Representatives, and two Senators for each state making 535 elected federal representative offices. There are over 3,140 counties in the U.S., 254 of those in Texas alone. I know you are prone to being optimistic about your beliefs and viewpoints, so not to burst your bubble but please, please trust me. That "IRV voting in the U.S." article mentions that, "as of August 2011, IRV elections have been held in more than a dozen jurisdictions since 2000." Serious when I say it, IRV/STV/PR is practically or if you like effectively, mostly, for all intents and purposes, unknown here. I only knew about it in 2009 because I had lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts for a while. Cambridge as a place is about as untypical a jurisdiction as there is here. Point is, we have thousands of jurisdictions and only very few (at least a dozen!) and very recently have any held PR voting. American Idol is a game show. Repeating, STV polling is not normal here, unlike in Ireland and in the UK. With such a system, it isn't naturally understood, there is a learning curve involved for many here, including understanding first preferences and transfers. Not to say the system is bad or unusable because of that, nevertheless trust me it is not well known and thus as I wrote "confused the process" for some to be sure. Sswonk (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The other thing about STV is that it is one of the simplest methods of voting on multiple choices, for the voter. You simply rank them in order of your preference. While administering the vote is a slightly more complicated process, I find it hard to believe that the instruction to 'rank these options in order of your preference' is a complication that would disadvantage any voter, regardless of whether they were used to the system or not.
 * Sswonk, you also suggest that having more than one option 'seeks to split votes against the "status quo" thus favoring it'. This is assuming that the basic choice is between (a) the "status quo" and (b) "anything else", and that people who don't like the status quo will obediently vote for whatever (b) they are presented with, but will get all confused and fail to cast an effective vote if given the choice of (b), (c) and (d). I think you should give people more credit. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I already asked about putting words into my mouth. I said none of that about people bumping in to things and falling down or whatever picture you're painting. It isn't confusion, it's diffusion. What about credit for me? Sswonk (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. This is en.wikipedia (for English-language), not us.wikipedia (for US-centric).  What was hard to understand about "vote for one or more of your favourite, then your second favourite if you so wish, and so on"?  As I recall, we'd relatively few single votes at all.  (Again, where are those who would defend us from the imposition of US-imperial-wiki-centricism when we need them?! :P ) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to answer all of these, but start here first. Bastun, what did she hit you with and how hard? I know you miss her. Still, I think she left the bells ringing inside your well-protected skull. I mean, you act like an aging soldier in Los Angeles who dives behind a bush when he sees a Korean grocer emerge from the rear of his store with a mop and bucket, believing it is an Imperial Japanese soldier with a bayonet. Can you please stop fighting ghosts from long ago wars? Anyway, I believe the phrase is: "locked in a sort of Imperialist Anglo-American Zanadu where editors of the same tribe can compliment one another on their openness and tolerance; like Civil Administrators at cocktail party in the Raj." Here at SQEOD, that description's close to "spot on" as you might say in those islands. Sswonk (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thon islands, even. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, don't mind me, Sswonk, I'm just enjoying the irony - something often lost on North Americans. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there's "racism, battleground behaviour and total failure to adhere to the most basic principles of editing in a collaborative environment" for you. Shrug. Alanis? Could be "described" as more successful than Melanie, and certainly more politically astute. Or is it poetically? Sswonk (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What's gonna be the next RM? after the current one is closed as 'no consensus'. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi GoodDay. You're killin me, you realize that don't you? If I remember right, you like RMs too much. Never enough RMs for you. Can you try to not be so RM happy and take a minute here to read what I'm saying about this, to end votes for now and gather some structure? I would very much appreciate that, AGF of course but please, hold off on worry about the "next RM". Thanks Sswonk (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just anxious that we avoid the preference scheme which we had in 2009. We should go the RM route, one at a time. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if so there you just proposed it. I would not agree to that scheme. Too many frivolous RMs, too much showcasing of "status quo" hegemony and dominance. It just seems like a game, like a professional wrestling card. I sincerely believe having votes will solve little, the past history and entrenchment here is too much of an issue. It's not a particularly neutral venue. Sswonk (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

At least, everybody's free to try to persuade the community to which title they believe is best. The more the community is involved, the better. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, we all know you love teh drama on teh internet, and after several one-line comments will usually !vote for whichever option has the best prospect of extending said drama, but please, no more RMs without discussion. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, you guys are no fun atall. GoodDay (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

How many votes have to be taken which clearly show no majority support for a change before people accept the status quo should remain for at least a while. At what point do we hold another vote on if we should request arbcom to extend the ban for another year or two? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is closing tomorrow, as I had understood from the above, why is the RFC being changed now? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * *shrug* Forum-shopping? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, if this RM fails, will we then need to go back to ArbCom to get another two-year break? It seems something of a perennial proposal, doesn't it? Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We've already decided against seeking another 2-yr break. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, otherwise we'd not be having this discussion at all. Perhaps two years is too short... Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Consensus can certainly change, but not by that much in the mere four days since the poll asking whether the ban should be extended was closed. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we close this now? It is now Tuesday, and I believe the conclusion was that it would close on Monday. I have certainly had enough of dancing around responding to a series of unbelievably lengthy and repetitive essays characterized by a massive failure to take on board not just the arguments, but the issues being argued about, on the other side. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to answer, the result so far is more like an avalanche than just snow. I only just hope people can agree to disagree for a while after it does close. Patience and let people have their say for the moment is what I think. I don't think there can be too many reasons for extending the RFC and it hasn't led to anything different. Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, we can close it now. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Geographic disambiguation
Since the US method of disambiguating place names (Atlanta, Georgia) is quietly being used for more and more places outside the US, why not extend this and have:


 * Ireland, Ireland
 * Ireland, Europe

Clearly the state is meant by the first example, and the island by the second.

If anyone should worry about the repeated name, they can rest assured that it will be no more confusing than New York, New York.

Yours in merriment, Rich Farmbrough, 10:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC).


 * Not sure about that. New York, New York is a very common phrase, whereas I don't think I've ever seen Ireland, Ireland before (and I spent about eight months there). Of course readers would figure out what we mean, but it would still violate the principle of least astonishment. <span style="background:#00ae00;white-space:nowrap;padding:3px;color:black;font:600 1em 'Gentium Book Basic', serif">― A. di M.​  15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the idea of


 * Ireland, Ireland to represent the state
 * Ireland to represent the island (as currently)

but I don't think it will fly, it contradicts too much established practice and policy. It just seems to have a charming Irishness about it. I note that demographically, New York is a significant Irish (-> city. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ireland, Ireland, smacks of original research. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's an anabashed neologism as far as I'm concerned. But it would be good to lighten up on this I think. At best the improvement to Wikipedia as a result of sticking strictly to the letter of our naming procedures is slight, there are redirects and hatnotes after all. On the other hand, the damage of taking these issues to heart can be considerable. Our contributors are human. And that's not a bad thing. Andrewa (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Committee for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries
Every country on Wikipedia seems to have a foreign, or international, relations article. The format is a list of inter-governmental diplomacy, who has an embassy with who, who went to war with who, and that point is the cut off. None seem to have an article for cultural relations, which aren't the same as intergovernmental relations. I mean, as a tourist guide, Wikipedia *could* get you beat up in the nicest of places. I'm just plucking at the future with a broad focus on the debate category here. What direction is this energy going, that sort of thing. Don't the cultural relations of many many countries make up interesting and informative reading? I know, you dive any deeper into culture than art and law and people want to have a war, but for instance, we have an article Culture of Ireland and we have Irish culture in the United States so forth, but we don't have Cultural relations of Ireland tying them all together in relation to the one. We don't have all-for-one in that respect. We've two or three for each other in some cases, but that's it. In fairness, the problem with this naming debate is that we have to make it all up ourselves. The topic hasn't really been touched by the sources we rely on, though they leave us with mismatches that don't add the whole 100 per cent. So, I don't know if there is a particular academic discipline, aside from all encompassing history, best covering cultural relations, between masses of people rather than leaders focus, but if it was more important before, our debate would have been solved here much sooner if it needed solved at all. I think that at some time in the future cultural relations articles and subjects should and will be more important. Maybe they already exist and I do not know what name they are going by but I've not found them per se. So, if you don't mind, for those really immersing themselves in this debate, what sort of thing might you be interested in next? I think this sort of thing partly fits so in case I'm right I'll leave the comment and other people might think about it too. Have a rainy day! ~ R . T . G  16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so if you can find a good source talking about such a topic and it seems distinct enough go for it. I'm not sure what kind of stuff you're talking about, is it mayors going off to Nova Scotia because of historic ties, towns twinning with towns in France or Zimbabwe, endangered communities getting together like with the Basques etc. that sort of thing or something quite different? Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything that is more than what we have currently, lists of diplomats and war. Rather than relying solely on articles such as relations between Ireland and US we could have an Ireland article which outlines the whole thing with all countries. All the things you mention and more seem to have a place in that. ~ R . T . G  13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you might get more input if this hadn't of been posted here whilst the current inane discussion rages on. WikiProject Ireland would of worked well enough to avoid it getting lost. Mabuska (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Full name" is Ireland
Above at the RM to move to "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (republic)", voted with "Oppose Full name is more descriptive." 

Hipocrite, a primary argument against the current title is justified precisely because of the mistake you made in that comment. "Republic of Ireland" is not the "full name" of the sovereign state Ireland. In fact, it is not an official name at all, but a description legislatively provided in 1948 when Ireland left the Commonwealth and declared a republic. Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland reads: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland." The full, long-form name is the only English name of the state, and that is one word: Ireland. For example, see the European Union Publications Office and on that page, in addition to the row about Ireland look at the notes at the bottom of the table. It says explicitly "Do not use ‘Republic of Ireland’ nor ‘Irish Republic’." Today, in 2011, the official preference is unambiguous and stated to the other governments of Europe: the Government of Ireland prefers use of the official name Ireland over others in writing.

n.b. everyone else: Who knows how many voters in the past used this same misinformed rationale? This vote, by a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia editorship, points out the falseness of the claims that the article lead and footnotes do enough to clarify such a mistaken perception. If someone who has edited en.wikipedia.org for that length of time gets it wrong, I find no reason for anyone to continue to think the average reader benefits from the current convoluted practice of titling an article and then relying on text to disclaim that very title as not being an official name of the state. Before mentioning "Hellenic Republic" or "United Mexican States", be aware that is a counterintuitive argument: the "Republic of Ireland" title uses a legislative, description-only long phrase to replace an official name, not the other way around where a long official name is substituted by an official short form one, as with Greece and Mexico.

The website you are now reading is an errant outlier on this issue, and in fact the RoI title is (correctly) not used by the vast majority of our reliable sources. Attempts at justifying the incorrect title constitute little more than original research supported by personal experience and point of view; such original research violates one of the three core content policies, and such policy is not trumped by guidelines or essays. It is time to end this practice and correct the mistakes initiated by Larry Sanger et al. in 2002. If there is a need to disambiguate from the current article titled Ireland, then do so using the actual name of the state, with a simple disambiguator, using the form Ireland (state). As said before, that is correct and accurate and ends all arguments, save lesser preferential ones such as "I don't like it because it uses parentheses." Sswonk (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The decision has been made by consensus for the moment. I see you care about this but I have another life to lead so I will ignore you. Come back in six months with your arguments and I'll listen again and you might convince me then for all I know. Pushing these arguments again and again before then is liable to just reset the tick on my clock. Dmcq (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "The incorrect decision has previously been upheld by original research" is more like it. We do all have another life, don't we? But how is that a valid reason to ignore facts placed in evidence meant to assist you in making decisions? The first paragraph may necessarily be a restatement of previous points, but that is because obviously the correct information has difficulty making it through. However, in the next two paragraphs above your comment you have new statements from me about the counterintuitive "other stuff" type reasoning and the "don't like brackets" rationale, both of which should have always been trumped by the combined core content policies of NPOV, verifiability and no original research. The primary reason for that is the local nature of the debates, which forced a poor title. I agree that it may take a few months to sway important editors, you among them. But, this isn't all meant for you and from time to time I will make these other types of observations. They're not meant to mess with your clock. Thanks though, Dmcq, I certainly will try to be less urgent sounding for you. Enjoy your time away. Sswonk (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Republic of Ireland is not the result of original research. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Republic of Ireland is not original research. It is a common name for the state and a natural disambiguator between the state and the broader topic/country/island. -- RA (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a title of an article here, that is how I am challenging based on the core content policies. It is a textual instrument within prose and unsupported as a purely synthetic title of an article here. To make the leap from its obvious but not frequent use as an official description and sometimes disambiguator by the Government of Ireland within certain text and on, for example, revenue envelopes, to being the best choice as the title here, that specifically is being challenged. The arguments in support are fully biased and are based on unsubstantiated assumption and pleadings against the tremendous weight of our reliable sources. That is handled by this: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." In this case, substitute the titling on this site of an article about a sovereign state that goes against the norms and positions of published works such as the sites I have linked for article titles whose content is unambiguously that same sovereign state Ireland and you have an OR title. "Republic of Ireland" is a bad title, and improper methods of justification have long supported it. As natural as it may seem to a small group of Wikipedia editors who know how to game its systems, it is not natural to a larger portion of the outside world. That situation should be ended, in this case by policy. A perfectly acceptable alternative is available and should replace the current title. Thanks for your continued reading of my thoughts. Sswonk (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that any reading of the policies you mention that renders 'Republic of Ireland' (a term found in reliable sources and provided for in Irish legislation) unacceptable as 'a title of an article' here, would also imply that we would need a verifiable source, avoiding original research, for the specific contention that 'Ireland' is a suitable title for a Wikipedia article about the Irish state. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Sswonk. It's undoubtedly gack of me to say this since I agree with (almost) everything you've written, but your patience, tone and articulation are remarkable. Bravo. Dickdock (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Applause. --Red King (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Zowie Bowie is not his real name. See title of article. Peace and thank you. Sswonk (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Republic of Ireland is perfect for the job of disambiguation. I must also comment - it appears that Sswonk and Sswonk alone is the only editor who is constantly and lengthily trying to put forward a case for a name change. No-one else really seems to be as bothered as trying to put forward a case. Whilst i would commend you Sswonk for your patience and perserverence, you can only flog a dead horse for so long, and i am getting highly bored of it as you've changed no-one's opinion as far as i can tell. Maybe others feel the same, but at some stage unless a miracle happens, that horse is going to be flogged away to nothing. Mabuska (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to translate from Sqeodic: "I am right. You are wasting your time. That is because, I am right. No one believes you. You are wrong. Go away. Therefore, I am right. Case closed." Is there a question in there, Mabuska? Because if you and BW and anyone else who wants Ireland back within the empire united kingdom of former rulers asks really nice, ... wait, what was that? Something about horses? Sswonk (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less for the empire, a federal United Kingdom of the British Isles yes, but definately not an empire. Maybe find out how an editor feels exactly on the issue before trying to poke him back :-) Mabuska (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't diss the horse! <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lovely surprise, thanks. Good to see he's only a priestly fantasy that horse. Dun is quite the color, don't you agree? Sswonk (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Mabuska. After sleeping on it I still, unfortunately, can't resist. Two editors compliment another on his extraordinary work and this is your response: trivialize and isolate him. The text pathetically edited from third person to second to dissemble engagement. The snide "lengthily" and dismissive "bored". And that big, fat, unctuous, vomit-making, two-faced, slimy little "commend" right bang in the middle. Can there be higher levels of phony that still haven't been reached in this debate? Maybe, maybe not. Dickdock (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * -> WP:CIVILITY Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My commending of his preservence and patience is sincere, however it is getting boring and it appears totally pointless. If you disagree with my comments Dickdock then fair enough, however maybe you yourself should think about what your writing when your complaining about someone else's words. Pot calling kettle? Regardless, it's neither here nor there, like that horse. Mabuska (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wording on WP:RM
I read "Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names" and mentioned it at "Wikipedia talk:Requested moves". A comment or two on whether it is still in forces and if so what would be appropriate wording would be appreciated. -- PBS (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's some discussion on this in the archives. Essentially ArbCom are happy for us to decide here. Their enforcement lasted 2 years and is now over. Fmph (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please place comments at "Wikipedia talk:Requested moves" rather than here, and perhaps someone would like to propose the brief wording that can be added to WP:RM, as I really think someone more actively involved with this project should take the lead on this. -- PBS (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing HighKing's poll
When HighKing opened the Poll to see if people want to retain the status quo above, he suggested it be closed on 30 September. It's nearly 30 October now. Can we get somebody to close that poll before the end of the month so we have a clear idea of where we are now and we can think of where we want to go next? Scolaire (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd probably be best to post a request at somewhere like WP:AN. Most users who have this page watchlisted are probably too involved to be closing it. Jenks24 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've asked at AN. Scolaire (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wowsers, no response from WP:AN yet. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing the whole discussion
A few of us who wanted an organised discussion with defined goals talked last September about agreeing a closing date for discussion. There was almost unanimous agreement on 30 October. It is now the 31st. I therefore propose that we put an immediate stop to the "pro" and "anti" arguments and see if we can agree on Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether any new argument or proposal of merit has emerged from the foregoing,
 * Whether there is any sign of potential agreement between the camps on any solution,
 * If so, how that can be channelled into actual agreement, and
 * In any case, what concrete steps, if any, should be taken next.
 * How about just ending and being done with it all? It can always be raised again as far as I'm concerned after some reasonable time has passed, six months minimum perhaps a year. If it comes up again too quickly I'll just go with the current consensus so as to not waste time flogging the dead horse. Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I too was in favour of a closing date, but one was most definitely not agreed, nor formally proposed, nor was there a poll or anything like it. All the discussions were tossed in together wrt to formats and structures. But nothing was agreed. I think it would be good to have a formal close, but I think TODAY is a bit silly. I'd suggest that formally we adopt 30th Nov, that we open a final poll 10 days beforehand, close it and agree any resulting actions on the 28th. Fmph (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether that was a reply to Dmcq or to me, but I am certainly not proposing that we formally close "TODAY". What I said was that we should begin the process of closing today. We should agree at the very least that repeating for the 51st time what we already said 50 times, only this time at greater length, will not advance the process. What we need is to build on any constructive ideas that have emerged from the discussion since the 18th of September, if there are any, and look at how we can channel our energy into building a consensus. That should not take 30 days. If it does, so be it, but the likelihood is that allowing another 30 days is only going to allow a small number of individuals on both sides to continue their personal slanging match without contributing anything to the consensus-building process. If people are genuinely committed to putting down the stick and looking to the future, 5-7 days should be more than enough. Whether there should be a "final" poll must be up for discussion too. We agreed, at your suggestion, to have six weeks discussion followed by a poll, instead of which we have had not one but three polls in the period. We need to be realistic about whether a fourth poll will clarify things any. Scolaire (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Close it all down, preferable today, definitely by the end of November. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Whether any new argument or proposal of merit has emerged from the foregoing", - No new arguments or proposals have been given by those demanding a change.

"Whether there is any sign of potential agreement between the camps on any solution" - There is agreement, the majority support the status quo and a small minority object to it and refuse to recognise the problems with their arguments and proposed article names.

"If so, how that can be channelled into actual agreement, and" - Accept that a minority are unhappy but recognise the current method used is the best option which has been the long standing way of organising the articles and was given very clear approval via an open poll conducted two years ago of many non involved editors.

"In any case, what concrete steps, if any, should be taken next." - If the debate for a change continues after a certain period of time, consider starting another vote on if we should go back to arbcom and ask for an extension of the ban on pagemoves for another year or 2 to resolve this matter and bring it to a close. Ideally id suggest we just bring the discussion to a close within the next 24 hours, and at least wait several months before reopening it again. But if this debate is still going on by this time next month, surely the time will have come to go back to arbcom? As stated above, the initial proposal for a close date was made some time ago, and that time has now passed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus wept. -- Evertype·✆ 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Evertype. Something less deliberately provocative was called for. Scolaire (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded to the points you raised with my views on the situation. This debate has been continuing for 2 months now. And considering the abuse that a certain editor has directed at me, i hardly call my post provocative. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your dismissal of "a small minority" as you put it is itself a splendid example of the problem. -- Evertype·✆ 21:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We've already decided (weeks ago), to allow discussions to continue 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussions should not continue indefinitely though, there has already been over a month of debate since the pagemove ban came to an end. Some voted to oppose an extension of the ban to allow for debate to see if consensus has changed, its very clear that has not changed so i do not see what progress more of the same arguments for many more months will make. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A fan of Churchill perhaps? 'Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.' I would like to skip all that and get to the end of the end thank you. There will be time to rake it all over again some time hopefully distant in the future. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)