Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles

Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

In infoboxes and bios. What is the protocol for place of birth, death, etc when dealing with those who are from Ireland? Are they pipelinked to say Ireland? ÓCorcráin (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Biographical articles for information. Martinvl (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That whole guideline needs looked at again. It's very odd to just give the link as the island. Other former states have articles that people are linked too and this should be the case here also.

For example it's good enough in the infobox to state and link to the Orange Free State for J. R. R. Tolkien's birth place. Piet Cronjé is stated and linked to the British Cape Colony. Caspar David Friedrich is stated and is linked to the article for Swedish Pomerania in his "Life" section. So why can we not link to Kingdom of Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no issue with linking to Kingdom of Ireland or Lordship of Ireland as appropriate (and pipe link as normal). However, practice for people from other parts of the United Kingdom is to link to simply England, Scotland or Wales, rather than to United Kingdom. Folk from Ireland should be treated no differently. So, after 1801, link to Ireland. After 1921, link to Northern Ireland. --RA (✍) 10:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added a start date (1 January 1801) to provide a range to the page. --RA (✍) 10:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well then we should create an appropriate article of at least link it to a disambig page stating the different Irish states. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to link to something like History of Ireland (1801–1923). Dmcq (talk)

That seems like quite a good article to link too. Would it be sensible to rename it something like "Ireland (1801-1923)" to make it seem more like a state/region article? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the rename if we're going down that route. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I, personally, think anything would be better than Ireland being linked, and do quite like the specific link element of the proposal. Murry1975 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposed rename, but that's a matter for Talk:History of Ireland (1801–1923) if it comes to it. jnestorius^(talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So I propose changing: "For people born between 1 January 1801 and 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or Ireland, and do not describe them as Northern Irish. Similarly, for people born anywhere else in Ireland between 1 January 1801 and 6 December 1922, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland (not Ireland)."

Too: "For people born between 1 January 1801 and 3 May 1921 in what is now Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland pipe-linked to History of Ireland as such: [[History of Ireland (1801–1923)|Ireland]]."

No-one has objected to using Lordship of Ireland or Kingdom of Ireland for the preceding times, with accommodation for Gaelic Ireland for those outside the Lordship? Though IMOS doesn't state we can or can't, so maybe we should add it in as well for clarity? Mabuska ^(talk)

Just on a note [[Ireland (1801-1923]] is a redirect to the history artcile of the period. Could we use that some how? Murry1975 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Somebody would just come along and remove the in between link. I think there may be some way of marking the redirect page to tell bots they shouldn't do that but I'm not certain about that. Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Have asked another editor,outside this project to have a look at this as they are fimilaar with overlinking and will proably have a more rounded approach. Murry1975 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the rename sounds okay which would solve any problem. How about just putting a note on the talk page and if no-one complains within a day just try doing it? Dmcq (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. It's important to avoid anachronism, but it's also important to avoid diluting articles with low-value links. I would say, for example, that we should almost never link to [[Ireland]] or [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. There will of course be isolated exceptions to this where the country or the island is especially important to the reader's understanding. It's also important to remember that a local consensus agreed here cannot override a project-wide consensus like OVERLINK. --John (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What about in regards to linking to a former state or region of a state? Also when did overlinking become the topic issue here? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mabuska, overlinking is a problem, in general, on the encyclopedia. Our efforts here on making guidelines should conform to what is accept project wise, if we create problems they can creep. I asked John because I have came across his edits, and he across mine. As a neutral to this he can see if we, in our efforts to provide linking would actually help or hinder our IMOS project or wikipedia itself. Murry1975 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking was briefly (and uncontroversially) discussed in December last year in relation to the preceding section, "Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland". I edited that section at the time to say that linking should be avoided if not absolutely necessary, and that version has remained stable ever since. The same should be done in this section. While we're at it, we should remove those specific dates – 1 January, 3 May and 6 December – which to my mind create confusion rather than help editors. In fact, with no linking we don't need 1801 or 1922 at all, just "Ireland before 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland; Ireland in all cases in the rest of the country, except where disambiguation is necessary." The guideline should also be more general than just place of birth, since biographies deal with place of death and place of residence as well. Scolaire (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is overlinking as the article it will be linked too is not what the vast majority of people will consider Ireland as meaning: 1, the island; 2, the Republic of. Giving the user a link to the appropriate state/territory is quite useful.

Your suggestion also conveniently avoids linking to an article in the lede that would explicitly show Ireland as being part of the UK of GB and I. Having said that though looking at the examples I quoted above: J. R. R. Tolkien, Piet Cronjé and Caspar David Friedrich only make mention of the country they where from in the infobox. The lede just states a nationality. Several Irish biography articles where Kingdom of Ireland would be required I notice already have it pipelinked to "Kingdom of Ireland" in the infobox.

Having said that, looking at other Irish examples of people who were born or died in the UK of GB and I: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington states death place as UK, not England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales. Arthur Guinness doesn't state a death place. Robert Emmet just states and links to Ireland the island and no link for the death place which would be UK.

So how do we deal with those articles? Obviously pipe-link birthplace to Kingdom of Ireland, but what should the death pipe be for those that died after 1801? Mabuska ^(talk) 20:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Look to what is common practice for England, Scotland and Wales. If they give the country as "United Kingdom" then do that. If they give the country as England, Scotland or Wales then do that. It's a mixed bag but, from my experience, practice is to link to England, Scotland, Wales. Examples: George Stephenson, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, John Hutton Balfour, George Everest, Robert Owen.

We should not rename an article just so we can link to it for this purpose. That article title should be what ever that article is about and per policy on article titles. Neither should we editors rely on links to explain what is meant by terms. That's terrible practice and they don't work in print or audio format.

I also agree that linking words like "England", "Ireland", "Scotland", "Wales" and "United Kingdom" is over linking. --RA (✍) 09:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the idea that a mention of Ireland should be linked to an article such as Kingdom of Ireland has never been properly rationalised or justified, in my opinion. Those who read an article on Turlough O'Carolan or Mícheál Ó Cléirigh, for instance, want to know what part of the world they came from. They don't need to be told that Henry VIII made himself king of Ireland in 1542, or that there was a viceroy, a parliament, an established church etc. etc., which is all that that article has to say. If there has to be a link – and I agree with MOS that there doesn't – at least Ireland will tell the reader that Ireland is an island to the north-west of continental Europe, which is the only thing that matters. Even if the reader becomes curious about what was going on politically during these men's lives, there is a Kingdom of Ireland section in that article, just as there are sections on the Lordship, the Union, partition etc. Scolaire (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

PS Please try to avoid snide comments like "Your suggestion also conveniently avoids..." Scolaire (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Elaborating on one of RA's points: a corollary of overlinking in the Irish context is that [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] is often a violation of WP:EASTEREGG. If it is not obvious that the state rather than the island is in question, then it needs to be made clear in the text of the article, not via a link that is invisible unless you hover or clickthrough. I think WP:IRE-IRL already handles all of that. jnestorius^(talk) 09:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The point is to inform the reader of the state they are from, regardless of Henry VIII or the viceroy etc., though all those thingd are relevant to the Kingdom. The fact the two articles don't even mention Ireland in any sense of where they are from speaks volumes of avoidance of mentioning an Ireland that is not Irish/Gaelic. Side-stepping reality is what that seems like to me.

"PS Please try to avoid snide comments like "Your suggestion also conveniently avoids..." - that was an homage to the "friendly antagonistic" attitude you said we have for each other :-D It has been well noticeable from the project for a good while. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is to inform the reader of the state they are from, says who? I can only think of a handful of people who are obsessed with states; the rest of us are interested in places. Omar Khayyám, for instance, links to Iran. That's fine! I know where Iran is on the globe. I don't care to be told what regime ruled the area in 1100, or how it was administered. It's a longish article, and I don't see any sense in which it "side-steps reality" by not trying to foist those details on me. What goes for Persians goes for Irish too. There's nothing unique about Ireland, that we have to introduce the Tudor conquest, the Act of Union, Catholics, Protestants, Dissenters and all the rest into every article relating to the country.

And when did you stop indenting? Scolaire (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

"...avoidance of mentioning an Ireland that is not Irish/Gaelic." - I think you're reading too much into this. If an articles links (or doesn't link) Scotland in the same way is further sign of the Jacobite cabal we all know runs Wikipedia? (Joking.)

Really, if someone was born prior to 1801, link to [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]], just as other articles link to [[Kingdom of England|England]], for example. If someone was born after then, we do what is common practice is for elsewhere in the United Kingdom (yes, United Kingdom): That is to give [[England]], [[Scotland]], [[Wales]], [[Northern Ireland]] or ... shock of shocks! ... prior to 1922 ... [[Ireland]]. --RA (✍) 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But you haven't answered my question either. Why link to [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]] or [[Kingdom of England|England]]? The Kingdom of Ireland was coterminous with Ireland; there is no benefit to the reader that I can see from linking to an article about the creation, administration and dissolution of the polity instead of an article about the place, which includes history. And what about the Welsh? Do all biographies of pre-eighteenth-century Welsh people link to Kingdom of England? If not, why should biographies of pre-eighteenth-century English people? And what about the English, for that matter? Is there really a rule that it's England up to the seventeenth century, Great Britain for the eighteenth and England thereafter? That would be one of the silliest rules I've come across. Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either need to be linked (as overlinking). I also agree with you in a general sense that there is a preponderance on states as opposed to places. The United Kingdom is an exception to that, where typically the emphasis is places within the state (such as for Ireland in this case).

I don't see the issue here. Because (a) I don't think the MOS as it stands mandates linking; but (b) neither do I think it precludes examples like, "Ireland, United Kingdom" (without wanting to encourage anyone to play with beans). But without precedence from other parts of the United Kingdom linking to, for example, [[United Kingdom|England]] or [[History of England|England]], I cannot see why it would be neutral to link Ireland in a similar way. It would also strike me as an example of an Easter egg link. --RA (✍) 10:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Since all the objections to my proposal to reword this paragraph seem to have been dealt with, and there have been no further objections, I have reworded it appropriately. --Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That section is still biased towards simply stating Ireland and nothing else that gives out its British past, I.e. UK of GB and I and KoI. Then again I made a proprosal above that several seemed to agree with on tackling that problem. Interesting you statenin your rewrite "Should pipelinking be considered necessary" - so why not pipe to Kingdom of Ireland or the like? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that linking to [[Ireland]] would be the same as linking to [[England]], [[Scotland]] or [[Wales]] (or [[Northern Irealnd]] today) as with the rest of the UK. I think there's a bigger question of how to refer to constituent parts of the UK. I don't really mind how that question is answered so long as we doesn't discriminate against against any part. --RA (✍) 19:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

For that reason and for other reasons given above, I think that this edit is wrong. "England", "Scotland", "Wales" and "Northern Ireland" are comprehensive articles about places, of which history and politics are a minor part. "Republic of Ireland" is the corresponding article for the post-1922 Irish state, and the Free State has an appropriate part in that article, both in the History section and in the lead. Irish Free State is a history article, no less and no more than "Kingdom of Ireland" or "History of Ireland (1801–1923)". Where pipelinks are deemed necessary – if ever they are – they should pipe to a single article on the place i.e. the modern Irish state. Scolaire (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Biographies needed a little adjustment for clarity as I came across this edit. I hope to have made a couple of things clearer, and in the essence of WP:BRD if I havent just help! Murry1975 (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted on the need for clarification! I adjusted your adjustment, (1) to keep NI in the NI paragraph, (2) because there is no need to illustrate a simple wikilink, as opposed to a pipelink, and (3) to give section headings to all three sub-sections, instead of just the second and third. Hopefully that is agreeable to you. Scolaire (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the help, team-work is the only way, so yes everything is agreeable. Admitedly it was only the edit on Liam Neeson that drew my attention to it. Murry1975 (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Irish names

User:Snappy is claiming "Irish name only used for placenames, institutions, organisation, agencies and some people but not [article about an Oireachtas bill]". Now, I don't have any strong feelings about whether it ought to apply to government bills, but Snappy's claim seems a lot more restrictive than WP:IMOS#Irish-language conventions:

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

I can sort of get the conceptual jump from "a subject" to "institutions, organisation, agencies", but (a) a less vague term than"subject" might be helpful and (b) I'm not sure Snappy's list is exhaustive. Any comments or suggestions? jnestorius^(talk) 20:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If the subject of the article, which in this case is "Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012", has an official Irish name then it should go into the article in the way it was put, in brackets after the English name. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need an Irish language version of a bill name? How does it improve the article? If this were the case, then every single article on an Irish topic would also have to have an Irish version in the lead. I'm not against the Irish language, I speak it reasonably well, and like using it, but this tokenism is just abusing it, like official Ireland has done for decades. WP:Common applies here too, is it also known by this name in the English language or it is as I suspect just some form of tokenism? Until we discussed the issue at length in IMOS, editors were adding Irish names for politicians even though they were not known as such and never used them, but because some civil servant somewhere translated their name then this made it somehow official. I think we will have to have a new discussion on this topic as well because to me, this is exactly the same kind of thinking. The adding of the Irish name because an "official" translation exists but nobody uses it in the English language. Furthermore this is one editors opinion, none of the previous Irish constitutional amendments articles have Irish language versions in the title, until jnestorius started editing the more recent ones. Snappy (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Going over the segment of the IMOS above with a fine-tooth comb, I would have to admit that Snappy is correct. There might be an Irish name for the bill if one invents one for whatever reason, say an Irish language paper, however if it is not used in the English language then it shouldn't be added. If the Irish name is used in the English language, but not as commonly as the English name then it goes into brackets after the English name. If the Irish name is more common in the English language, then the article will be spelt in the Irish form. So Snappy is correct. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But WP:COMMON and WP:USEENGLISH apply to places just as much as to bills. The reason why we include the Irish name of towns and villages is obviously not that some English speakers use the Irish name when speaking English; they don't. I believe the reason is the same as why we give both the French and German names of towns in Switzerland: because both are official languages of the state, whichever happens to be spoken in the town itself. IMOS now has well-developed policies for people and places, but the policy for Everything Else is underspecified and vague. Mabuska needs a fine-tooth comb to understand it; I still don't understand it. I'm not saying it's wrong; but I don't see how Snappy's comment applies to bills but not to "institutions, organisation, agencies". If we can establish a clearer wording that makes the exclusion of bills obvious, I will be quite content. jnestorius^(talk) 10:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I welcome the inclusion of Irish versions of place names because they provide valuable insight into the etymology of the English derivatives (e.g. Mallaranny, an Mhala Raithní, meaning "the hill-brow of the ferns"), but there is no point in including "Parthalán Ó hEachthairn" in the Bertie Ahern article; that belongs only in Vicipéid. The Irish version of the title of a constitutional amendment does not belong in English Wikipedia, either. — O'Dea (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions like this should be decided by consensus, not by adding extra bits to IMOS. Jnestorius wants to put an Irish translation in an article; Snappy disagrees with it. But Snappy states his disagreement as though it was policy, and that's wrong. It's only his opinion, which he expresses eloquently above, but should have expressed on the article talk page instead. As far as the wording of this manual is concerned, Jnestorius is correct: "subject" means "subject", and nobody can arbitrarily restrict that meaning. For the record, 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State has "French: loi du 9 décembre 1905 concernant la séparation des Églises et de l'État" in brackets after it. Therefore (a) it's not just Gaelic Leagueism gone crazy, and (b) if it is to be specifically banned it needs to be done at MOS, not IMOS. Scolaire (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions like this should be decided by consensus, not by adding extra bits to IMOS. -- I think that's a false opposition. I would have thought consensus emerged on this Talk page and then IMOS was updated to reflect that. I agree that it is wrong to have a MOS that goes into excruciating detail about every case and subcase, if that's what you mean. jnestorius^(talk) 11:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, that's what I meant. The question of whether a translation should appear in a given article should be thrashed out on the talk page of that article, not taken straight to IMOS. It's like amending the consitution every time a case comes before the District Court. And you know how we feel about constituional amendments right now ;-) Scolaire (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire, your French example is incorrect or at least inexact, as French is spoken by 99% of people there and that's what they call it. No-one refers to a bill by its Irish name while speaking English in Ireland. I grant you that some people might want to know the name of a bill in Irish but they can look up the Oireachtas website for that. Also, its not my opinion, its my interpretation of IMOS, it may be incorrect but it my reasoning; and O'Dea and Mabuska agree with it. Snappy (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of IMOS is still only your opinion. It's not up to any editor to "interpret" a manual of style so as to say it mandates or forbids individual edits, nor should a MOS be endlessly expanded to cover individual edits. O'Dea and Mabuska may agree with your opinion, but I can't see where either of them says their opinion, or their agreement with yours, is based on IMOS. Your opinions ought to be expressed on the article talk page, where they are relevant. Scolaire (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. Since you seem to disagree with the word interpretation then let me put it like this. On reading IMOS, I edited the article accordingly. Its what editors do. Obviously, one persons edits in accordance with MOS/IMOS may not be in agreement with another editor. This is why we have these discussions here. Btw, I didn't start the discussion here but I will contribute to it. Snappy (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree the IMOS should normally only include things which are reasonably common and the question has been thrashed out elsewhere to form a consensus and it then looks like sticking it into IMOS would be a good idea. We don't prepare for problems in advance, it may sound a good idea but basically that is a route to excessive bureaucracy.

Anyway I though the general rule except for sapecified exceptions was to only put in an Irish name if it is referred to that way in some English sources, not just because it appears in an official website along with other translations. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am still not seeing how the current IMOS wording mandates Irish names at Leaving Certificate (Ireland), Department of Justice and Equality, Electricity Supply Board, University College Cork but not at Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012. I am not suggesting that the policy must be all or nothing; I am saying the wording should explain the policy. jnestorius^(talk) 20:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, the wording does not mandate anything or forbid anything. And it's not a policy. And it's not supposed to be referred to whenever editors disagree on an edit. You're quite right in saying that Scrúduithe na hArdteistiméireachta, Roinn Dlí agus Cirt agus Comhionannais, Bord Soláthair an Leictreachais and Coláiste na hOllscoile Corcaigh are not in general use among English speakers, any more than An Bille um an Aonú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht is, but all of these are matters of convention, not of policy, and the convention to be adopted on any article should be discussed and agreed on that article talk page. IMOS was never intended as a court of appeal; it's a general guideline and in general the guideline works. Scolaire (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

jnestorius, your contributions on Referendum articles (and elsewhere) are high quality edits, but no-one else who had previously edited these articles saw fit to add an Irish name to them. So who then is correct? What does the addition of the Irish name add to the article? The current IMOS is not some legal text covering all possibilities, common sense applies too. I am applying the same criteria as applies to peoples names, that is, unless they are also known by the Irish name in the English language then the Irish name is left out. Snappy (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem, User:ScolaireSnappy, seems to be that your common sense does not agree with my common sense. You are applying the same criteria as apply to people's names, I am applying the same criteria as apply to organisations and institutions. My thinking is that anything produced officially by the state should give both official names, as for placenames; anything private, unofficial, or not state-related generally should not, as for personal names. So bills, state agencies, etc, should have the official Irish form; whereas Great Famine (Ireland) or Irish War of Independence should not have Irish names in the lede (though if the naming is notable in its own right it can be discussed later on). The Gaelic Athletic Association should have its Irish name, since it promotes Irish and often uses snippets of Irish in English-language contexts; the Football Association of Ireland and Irish Rugby Football Union should not, since they don't. jnestorius^(talk) 11:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant to say, "The problem, User:Snappy..." I have not applied any criteria, and my common sense has to do with keeping IMOS sensible and readable. I actually don't care what anybody does in article edits as long as we don't keep tampering with IMOS. Scolaire (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did of course mean Snappy. Apparently I only notice the first letter of usernames. jnestorius^(talk) 10:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The primary name in law for the subject, which incidentally was a proposed law, is the Irish-language name. Of all things, laws should have their Irish-language name given even if most people call them by the second official language (under law).

I think, jnestorius has a point. Though I think he/she goes too far. The FAI have an official Irish-language name (see), for example. If so, then give it IMO.

Other things often tend to have Irish-language for no good reason. For many things, as a rule of thumb, if the ga.wiki wouldn't give English-language name in parenthesis then we shouldn't give the Irish name. And if it would, then we should give the Irish name (e.g. Great Famine (Ireland)/An Gorta Mór vs. Football Association of Ireland/Cumann Peile na hÉireann). --Tóraí (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's true in general that the primary language of laws is Irish. That's required to be true of the Constitution itself, but Acts (even constitutional amendments) can be passed in either language and translated into the other. In practice most are passed in English, but Constitutional amendments are passed in both (Irish taking precedence) and laws relating the the Gaeltacht or Irish language are passed in Irish. In any case, the point is tangential to the issue at hand. jnestorius^(talk) 12:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right it's more complicated than that. Article 25.4.3–6: the President signs the version or versions (English or Irish) of a Bill deemed passed by the Houses. That may be in either or both of the official languages. This is then recorded as law in the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. If the Bill was deemed passed in only one language then an official translation will be made ASAP. However, only the version or versions recorded with the Registrar of the Supreme Court counts as law. If that is in both languages then the Irish language version takes precedence. --Tóraí (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL and piped links

Moved here from my talk page -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure if you are aware, but recent "script assisted" edits have resulted in some issues relative to the consensus for handling the name of the Irish state. See WP:IRE-IRL for details. But - in short - we use the following form: "[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" where DAB (with the island name) isn't a direct issue. I have addressed some examples, but I wonder whether something in the script could be updated to address this. (I am not sure why the script seems to have "taken against" either piped links or high-level article titles, but an exception/fix would avoid a lot of rework/noise) Thanks Guliolopez (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've (also) noticed your script changed [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to Republic of Ireland here. Unknowingly, this can be a contentious issue. THe manual of style for these changes is to ordinarily pipe link Republic of Ireland as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] or simply refer to the sate as Republic of Ireland. --Tóraí (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice it's done this across many articles. Could you please amend the script before doing any more action with it? --Tóraí (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there is so much a problem with the way I am unlinking. I know that Ireland and Republic of Ireland are separate entities and the former is often used to mean the latter, thus it can be confusing. I set up the script to follow WP:IRE-IRL, to unlink without ambiguity – "[[Ireland]]" is unlinked to "Ireland" and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] is unlinked to "Republic of Ireland". You may be justified to complain if I had unlinked [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to "Ireland", but I have not.

  I would contend that there may be a problem of deceptive piping of Ireland into the ROI ([[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]) in the first place. Relying on the links to do the disambiguating for you, seems just plain wrong, even if WP:IRE-IRL says so. It's not intuitive for the reader to need to hover over the link to find out what the writer meant, and what's more the displayed text may surprise. Why the article should display (in read mode) 'Ireland' when you mean 'Republic of Ireland' is completely beyond me, as it perpetuates the misuse and thus confusion. And this is something the collective editors of Ireland articles should first address. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 02:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: believe it or not, this is an issue covered by an Arbitration Committee motion, so tread very carefully if you want to continue using your script.

In this case, your script unlinked text (no problem) but changed text from reading "Ireland" to read "Republic of Ireland" (problem). I suggest you follow the MOS otherwise the community may decide that you cannot use your script per Wikipedia:Bot policy (see specifically WP:CONTEXTBOT). I would strongly advice against using a script to change the text used to indicate Ireland/Republic of Ireland in an article. --Tóraí (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If I were indeed to have changed "Ireland" to read "Republic of Ireland", I agree there is a problem. But I did not. I changed [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to "Republic of Ireland", but you implied that I changed "Ireland" to read "Republic of Ireland", and that is wholly misleading. About the same order of magnitude as the piped link you had there. The difference of that to what I did is not at all subtle. Call me pedantic, the form of "Ireland" the page may have changed, but the substance is not only unchanged, but rendered more clear due to the removal of a totally misleading Easter egg. WP:IRE-IRL says: "If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]." So it's clear that if we were to reversing the process and unlink the state, one would be obliged to take away the reductive "Ireland" to replace it with "Republic of Ireland", which is exactly what I have done. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• "I changed [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] to "Republic of Ireland"..." Yes. The text previously read "Ireland" and you changed it to read "Republic of Ireland".
• "...but you implied that I changed "Ireland" to read "Republic of Ireland"..." No, I said it explicitly. The text previously read "Ireland" and you changed it to "Republic of Ireland".

Take this article: Before your script, it read, "...the county town of County Mayo, Ireland." After your script, it read, "the county town of County Mayo, Republic of Ireland."

Now, there are two ways we can address your wayward script. You change it voluntarily to be compliant with the MOS. Or I can take an enforcement against it. What way to do you want to roll? --Tóraí (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's just your opinion that I have erred. Luckily for you, in that example, County Mayo, ROI also happens to be on the main island of Ireland, so "County Mayo, Ireland" and "County Mayo, Republic of Ireland" are the same, to all intents and purposes. But otherwise, you are WRONG. Stop threatening me. If your beef is with me unlinking, that's one thing, but if you are griping that I changed the face of the text, misleading stating "Ireland" when the true underlying meaning is the ROI, that's quite another. It seems to me that you are objecting to the latter, but I could be wrong. If you want to take action about me removing misleading piped links, there is nothing to stop you. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is with your script changing the "face of the text". Possibly you aren't aware of this, but the name of the state (officially and commonly) is Ireland. The article on the subject is at Republic of Ireland for disambiguation reasons. However, that is a source of contention.

In an overall settlement of involving ArbCom, a style manual was developed. The state is ordinarily referred to as "Ireland" in text (whether linked or otherwise). There are some cases where Republic of Ireland is preferable, however. The choice of when to use "Ireland" and when to use "Republic of Ireland" is one that is context sensitive, involves human attention and is not suitable for an automated process (see WP:CONTEXTBOT).

Now, no-one is threatening you. You were approached very amicably by myself and two other editors (independently of each other) advising you that your script had stepped into a hornets nest and advising you to alter it. However, your response has been bullish and obtuse.

Will you alter your script so that it does not change the wording (linked or otherwise) used to indicate Ireland/Republic of Ireland in articles? --Tóraí (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the piping optimal under the circumstances? Maybe. It's a piece of cake change how it unlinks. But if I unlink to the text displayed when removing the links, I am pretty sure that would be met with even louder howls of protest. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have raised a section at WP:ANI#User:Ohconfucius editing Ireland related artices against consensus about editing a load of articles like this with a bot without checking or thinking they're better than the people who set up WP:IMOS. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As to Sligo, it should be Sligo, Ireland. Republic of Ireland is used as the title because there can't be two articles with the title Ireland. That is all clearly explained in the IMOS. If you want to complain about it raise an RfC about it. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• No one has ever given me a faintly good reason to make some kind of exception to the principle of not linking commonly known country-names. Tony (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

See, that's your problem right there. What do you think is the commonly known country name for the 26-county Irish state???? (Hint: It's not Republic of Ireland). --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to raise a WP:RfC on WP:IMOS then go ahead. Otherwise follow WP:CONSENSUS. Is that a good enough reason? What people here are saying is that if somebody does think an instance of '[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]' should be unlinked than it should be changed to 'Ireland', not to 'Republic of Ireland'. Editors should not change the text that is read without some proper though about what they are doing. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus was established community-wide. The case is yours to make if you want some kind of exception to be made for one anglophone country-name. Could I know what compelling reasons there are? Tony (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The most compelling reason I can think of, is that the actual official/common name of the state is "Ireland". Under British legislation, the name of the state is "Republic of Ireland". Irish legislation mentions "Republic of Ireland" as a description of the state. Some people believe that's enough for the article on the state to be named "Republic of Ireland", thus misinforming lazy readers/editors on what the actual name of the state is, leading to discussions like this, and bots that misbehave. --HighKing (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The UK Parliament has stopped that business since the Good Friday Agreement. That was years ago now. They call it Ireland like everybody else now in anything official. Sometimes Republic of Ireland is used but so does the Dáil when talking about Northern Ireland for obvious reasons. Dmcq (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

British legislation hasn't changed... --HighKing (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The law has gone into disuse. It would be better to remove it but I think there are a few more important things for the UK to do - avoiding falling into a pit of debt like Ireland for instance would be good if they were able to do it. I don't think parliament is about to take itself to court over breaking its own law. Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• If Ireland is considered to be so well-known that it doesn't normally need a link (I would agree with that assessment and I don't think others in this discussion are substantially disagreeing) then the question is simply over whether it's better to show 'Ireland' or 'Republic of Ireland' after removing the link. As we're all agreed that no link is usually necessary to clarify exactly is meant by 'Ireland', I see no need to spell out 'Republic of Ireland', even if the original unnecessary link pointed there. This seems to be the same conclusion that WP:IMOS comes to. There may be cases where the full name is necessary, but once the delink script is modified, they can be dealt with individually as they arise, since OhC is running a script, not operating a bot as some contributors seem to think. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot policy applies to editor assisted scripts as well. In particular, the section on assisted editing states, "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." Whatever the exact mechanism for these edits, they fit the description of the kind that require consensus. --Tóraí (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What Toraí, HighKing and Dmcq have said. We have a long-established consensus at WP:IMOS, which follows Wiki policies, Arbcom resolutions, WP:IECOLL and all the talking that went on here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Errr ... which policy? Which resolution? No. We're not about to make an exception to the site-wide rules because some group of editors got together and decided to persist with gratuitous links to a certain item. Sorry, you can't just declare your own little kingdom and ignore the rest of the project. Tony (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony, de-linking is a not a problem (see the last bullet point of WP:IRE-IRL). Nobody has raised an issue with that. The problem is changing the text. --Tóraí (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony, again, what Tóraí said. De-linking is fine, changing the text isn't. The resolutions I referred to are mainly outlined here, especially the first remedy, which effectively contributed to the development of a stable WP:IMOS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Errr ... what "site-wide rules"? The state has been referred to in articles as "Ireland" for many years now. That's because its name is "Ireland". There is a long-standing consensus for that, in fact nobody has ever complained about it, that I can recall. So which "site-wide rule" precisely is it breaking? I didn't even know there were such things; I've only ever heard of policies and guidelines. And who's the "we" who aren't going to "make an exception"? The mandarins who make these rules, perhaps? Scolaire (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Why can't this project to the same as New York and New York City? It seems that most people here refer to the state as "Ireland" but we are obliged to disambiguate in this wholly inadequate way that causes frequent uses of an Easter egg. I think it would make sense to move Ireland to Ireland (island), then Republic of Ireland should be moved to Ireland. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 17:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just do what the wP:IMOS says and if you want it changed raise a RfC. That point has been raised a number of times and the consensus is that article about the island have the title Ireland and the article about the state have the title Republic of Ireland. It is practically certain the titles would stay as they are but anything else is just a waste of time and disruption on your part. Dmcq (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you do want to raise yet another RfC please note that discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration,see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FIreland_article_names_2 Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, the issue is more complex than that. Most people here also refer to Ireland-the-island as "Ireland" (what else would you call it?). And for most matters the Ireland-the-island is the primary topic (e.g. sport, history, geography, religion, art, culture, people, music, etc.).

In any case, your script removes the link (and no-one objects to that) so the location of the Ireland-the-state article is of no relevance to this discussion. The issue is that your script changes the text of the article in a manner that is inappropriate for a script to do and contrary to the MOS. Will you amend your script? --Tóraí (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Usually, Easter eggs are fairly simple to deal with. This issue is difficult because two subjects have the same common name. But with most use, there still seems to be an element of ambiguity between both. You guys thought it best to move one to its formal name leaving the other at the common name. The current namespaces may seem like an elegant solution and it's one I probably would have supported at the time, but it's likely to have been another one of those delicate fudges that have practical difficulties. The namespace occupation and specifically the Easter egg links are storing up problems. My usual tactic is to unlink to what's on the face of the link, but I changed tack being I mindful of not changing the underlying meaning, to avoid create ambiguities when unlinking. Ironically, it's that thoughtfulness that seems to be causing the problem. Based on the kilobytes of discussion in the last couple of days, it seems clear that I need not have bothered.

  Of course, the location of the Ireland-the-state article is of every relevance to this discussion. The whole thing is complicated because the current location of the articles actually blurs the distinction between the island and the republic, and people end up piping a link from "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland". It's a problem that people beat around the bush and don't say what they mean; it's a problem that you people can't say "Ireland" and mean "Ireland" and ROI when you mean ROI. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 00:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you seem to have accepted the situation, but you might be a bit more gracious about it. "Ironically, it's that thoughtfulness that seems to be causing the problem. Based on the kilobytes of discussion in the last couple of days, it seems clear that I need not have bothered." Your thoughtfulness was not the problem here, but your failure to respond in a positive way when a number of editors explained the situation to you and politely asked you to stop. "It's likely to have been another one of those delicate fudges that have practical difficulties." It wasn't a delicate fudge, it was the only realistic solution, and this difficulty of yours – what should have been a minor hiccup if you had just listened to people instead of preaching at them – is the first difficulty, practical or philosophical, that it has had since 2009. "It's a problem that people beat around the bush and don't say what they mean". No, it's a problem when people try to foist their world view on everybody else instead of accepting a long-standing and effective convention. A simple apology for causing needless disruption would have been more appropriate than the above rant. Scolaire (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that. And I don't think they've quite got it yet saying 'and ROI when you mean ROI'. We say ROI or the island of Ireland when we mean Ireland but need to disambiguate. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC at Defence Forces article

An RfC is open at Talk:Defence Forces (Ireland) on the question of whether "Fórsaí Cosanta" should be included (along with Óglaigh na hÉireann) in brackets in the first sentence of the article. I am giving notice of it here because the issues are similar to the earlier Irish names discussion on this page, and because it might have implications for IMOS down the line. Scolaire (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Firstly, is there a problem with piping Ireland to the article about the country of the time (UK of GB & I), for the period 1801 to 1920? For example: Ireland?

Secondly, while reading this style guide, I noticed it suggests, "and they should not be described as "Northern Irish". Why on Earth not?! Leaving the self-identification options of 'Irish' and 'British' out of the equation, those who self-identify as 'Northern Irish' as a first preference, according to a well-regarded poll carried out by the two universities of Northern Ireland, is a significant proportion of the population. Moreover, it is defined in Wikionary; is used throughout hundreds of other publications, including being used as the title in many; is a term peppered in all the major government publications, including the NIDIRECT, NI executive and NI government websites, and is recorded in Hansard; the term is used personally when referring to the people as a moderate alternative to a perception of picking political sides; and has been a term used countless times in the news media for decades. --24.168.199.211 (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)