Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Archive 3

Goals and expectations

 * Clarification of the title: "expectations" refers to where we want to be, not how'' to get there. For the latter, pls refer to the specific sections, such as above or  below.  &mdash; Sebastian 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize I rushed this initially, before finding out what everybody's expectations are. All we know for sure is that ArbCom wants this settled somehow. But what are the priorities for people here? Is it more important to be fast, to avoid discussions, or to include everyone and every viewpoint - or some other important criteria, which I forgot? Are there any goals that we should set ourselves? Please let us know; you're the experts on this issue! &mdash; Sebastian 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A final solution that as many people as possible are prepared to defend should be the goal. Trying to resolve the problem quickly will end up leaving out some people and will make the final choice harder to defend. All views should be taken into account and all options, but the aim should be to find the least controversial / offensive / unacceptable option. When trying to decide which is the best option, the amount of strong opposition to a certain choice should be taken very seriously otherwise theres going to be many people who will find it hard to respect the result. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with BritishWatcher, [remainder of message moved to .]  -- Snowded   TALK  11:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Publicity / notice
Could I ask the appointed mediators to widely advertise the existence of this project and more importantly the tasks at hand of deciding on a mechanism for Ireland-related-article-naming and following through on that mechanism till a decision is arrived at? Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait with that until the moderator panel is complete and agrees on its task, because we're not really operational yet. I am sorry, it was my mistake to already announce this at talk:Ireland; I just thought I could take advantage of the momentum there and get this project going. I also don't see a need to advertize this much further than at WP:IE. My reason for that is that I believe that people who are really interested in Ireland have either the article or the project on their watchlist. If you disagree, please provide a reason that refutes this point. &mdash; Sebastian 11:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While probably most people will see it at WP:IE, the issue has previously been debated extensively in other places, including, off the top of my head, WP:IMOS and especially Talk:Republic of Ireland. If we're to have "closure" on the issue arising from whatever is decided, I believe we should have as many participants as possible.  No problem holding off for the moment until the panel is complete. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 11:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Unless there are any objections, let's go with that. &mdash; Sebastian 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, can we please have more formal and clear announcements? One of the problems with the last "polls" was that one of them was conducted in a obscure corner of WP. To the closing admin, it looked like it was a proper location and widely contributed to project but to the community it was a contested space.
 * This project was unknown of before the announcement that the Ireland/Republic of Ireland dispute would move on to this theatre (see: and ). It didn't even have any members!
 * I am also worried about word above that discussion will only take place between the "members" of a project. As an IP-based contributor, by "membership" of a project would be a tenuous concept since I have no username to sign them membership list. --89.101.216.172 (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should start publicizing this already despite the panel not being complete. Are there any objections? Maybe we could have wording along these lines: "While the main process has not begun yet, as our panel is not complete yet, we would like to invite people to help in preparing and selecting the process."

Now that we are taking statement should we start letting people know? I can inform all users who posted at the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force using WP:AWB if we wish Gnevin (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should have done that. Sorry, it seems we all overlooked this discussion. Now that we've been waiting for so long, I would like to first clean up the page, so that newcomers don't get overwhelmed. I archived those sections that had been resolved for a while and added new resolved tags or comments to sections that I would like to resolve, and I think we can archive them in three days. Or, alternatively, should we move everything that's still relevant to the "Statements" subpage or another subpage? &mdash; Sebastian 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be bold and move tidy up no, we can pull out from archive if needed .Gnevin (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. &mdash; Sebastian 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I plan to inform anyone who posted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force and our parent project, should anyone else be informed? Gnevin (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I originally only though of posting it at the few related articles and projects, as Bastun proposed above. But I have no objection to your proposal, other than that it's more work. &mdash; Sebastian 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AWB will make short work of it. We just need to agree the text of the notice now Gnevin (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course! I'll create a sandbox at WP:IECOLL/sandbox, so we can edit it together. &mdash; Sebastian 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize I accidentally volunteered myself to do the cleanup here, so I did that now. :-) I also archived talk:Ireland and Talk:Republic of Ireland, but I didn't want to tread on other wikiprojects' turf and I left them unarchived. So, as far as I'm concerned, the publicity / notice can begin. Please archive this section, and the Hello and proposed text sections, too, when there is no objection. &mdash; Sebastian 18:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Publicity / notice proposed text
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. In an effort to solve this issue WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process ,the problems  and current statements.

Note the statement process is a no rebuttal process. Gnevin (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems fine to me, although we need to make sure the message is clear on all the article talk pages as well as posting to people previously involved in the debate. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean concretely by "clear on all the article talk pages"? &mdash; Sebastian 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just mean under a clear title on each of the article talk pages. For example if we look at the Talk:Ireland page the link to this collaboration page gets lost in huge paragraphs and sections on trying to decide how to proceed. Alot of that old debate should really be put in the archive box and a new section linking to this page created at the bottom of the page. And ofcourse the link to this page currently appears nowhere on Talk:Republic of Ireland which is the actual article some have a problem with. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest IECOLL/sandbox2 for article talk pages Gnevin (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes something like that would be great and clearly couldnt be missed by people. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked that. In the meantime, I created a different proposal here: WP:IECOLL/sandbox. &mdash; Sebastian 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am merging your proposal into WP:IECOLL/sandbox for now. I think we can leave out the extra paragraph about the rebuttal, because that is already covered in the procedure description. &mdash; Sebastian 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved, so I should start informing people ? Gnevin (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Message look OK. Please do. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 01:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please go ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 204 users informed and 8 pages tagged with IECOLL-talk, I've missed a group of editors or a discussion please let me know and I will do a other run.  Gnevin (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job, well done guys. Will be interesting to see if we get flooded with people now. :)BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the first of the flood. I've been out of the loop for quite some time, could someone update me on where we are? Jack forbes (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very long story short, after numerous requested move, a task force. A RFA has ordered a procedure be found to find a long term solution. The procedure has been decided and statements are now being taken Gnevin (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Snowed was talking about previous statements like the many made to get Arbcom to take this case in the first place. I was rather stunned when after that we seemed to come back to stage one again. Anyway perhaps we should post on all the Ireland articles linking to this page again (and statement page) and give people a deadline to submit their statements. Because at the moment there seems to be just strong support for one statement, and if thats the case progess could and should be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello?
What is going on here? Arbcom gave you the job of sorting this out and nothing seems to be happening. Things got to this stage as there is no consensus for the current situation. Can you sort this out then?194.125.117.215 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My plan was to invoke statements from the involved editors in order to gather the curerent viewpoints, but that seems to go a little slow. Perhaps all those involved are a little tired of having to write down their perspectives yet again, or they much rather enter into discussion. Or this procedure is not advertised enough. I don't know. I did expect far more statements. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think speed is a priority; however, some evidence of progress or explanations for lack of might be appropriate.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mediators can only mediate. If editors do not wish to participate, there is little that can be done to force that. Personally, I think everyone is just sick of the whole thing. Rockpock  e  t  21:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Edokter in fairness I don't think we have informed the users we are taking statements . Maybe we should Gnevin (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes we should. A link on the ArbCom case page, and a note on this project pages might help. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been a hundred statements, what is needed is a process to isolate the issues and then resolve them. --Snowded (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A hundred? I only see six so far. This statement process is intended to do exactly that; identifying the issues. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Snowed was talking about previous statements like the many made to get Arbcom to take this case in the first place. I was rather stunned when after that we seemed to come back to stage one again. Anyway perhaps we should post on all the Ireland articles linking to this page again (and statement page) and give people a deadline to submit their statements. Because at the moment there seems to be just strong support for one statement, and if thats the case progess could and should be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think setting a deadline is a good idea. Should we give editors another week? PhilKnight (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Id support some form of deadline like a week, and if agreed someone should really post an announcment on all the Ireland articles so no one is left out and doesnt find out about it afterwards that leads to more disputes. There seemed to be alot more people with problems about the ireland naming issue and in previous debates than here now. I understand some have clearly had enough and a few retired because of it but i do worry there might be some who arrive at the last minute when it looks like the issue is close to resolution and cause all sorts of problems. We need clear announcments on all of the pages to try and reduce the chances of something like that happening. from the page i saw it seemed to get bogged down in long debate about arbcom, so this link isnt very clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "1 week after it has been announced"? (See Gnevin's statement above and section .) &mdash; Sebastian 01:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There were a lot of statements to get Arbcom to take the case but they did not take the case... AfD also maintains a poor show of opinions. One week is cutting it fine if you do not announce it on each previously concerned editors talk page and that is often done to provide interest in discussions like this. ~ R . T . G  11:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (discussion about publicity moved to )