Talk:Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland

Irish Geocodes was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 April 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Philately Start‑class Low‑importance

	Philately portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Start‑class Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 2 months

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Old merge comment

Is this merger proposal a mistake? Was it not intended for Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland. Talk on this page specifically excludes postcode information.

It's grown to include that. -- Beland (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

This article page should not even be a forum for the topic of the future postcode except for a short summary linking to the main article on Irish postcodes. This article is not about any past or future postcode in Ireland at all, it is about how how post is addressed in Ireland. We have an entirely more appropriate article where the preparation for the Irish postcode is more appropriate, vis., Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but at the time when it was created, there was no indication as to whether or not there would be a postcode system at all. A similar thing happened with the New Zealand postal addresses article, which was superseded by one on the postcode system introduced in 2006, to which it redirects. Quiensabe (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving of pages

I have noticed that the archiving of talk topics on this page are being done extremely quickly, with many articles less than 20 days old. This should not be done - according to Help:Archiving_a_talk_page,

Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to consensus for each case, however the talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 50 KB or has more than 10 main topics. Leave ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference intact.

Note the word consensus in the above, and also the recommended talk page length/size. Archiving topics too quickly means any topics created cannot be adequately discussed. Such archiving can appear to some to be made solely to deliberately inhibit discussions of topics that some contributors would prefer to be ignored, which is against the principles of Wikipedia. Such behaviour is considered disruptive, and has consequences. The Yeti (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is being done with a bot. I have amended the bot to a more realistic timeframe. Read the bot setup page before editing again - the settings were set below default/recommended levels. Also note the word consensus. The Yeti (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I notice is that you appear not to have read the archived pages .Garda40 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The consensus of regular, registered editors, as opposed to banned sockpuppets, is to archive often. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This unbalanced article should be WP:SPLIT

The article is now dominated by approximately 85% on the postal codes and their introduction and only about 15% about the postal addresses themselves and is completely out of proportion to the article title so is an entirely suitable candidate for splitting. The lede mentions addressing in one paragraphs which never appears again in the body of the article. The lede should reflect the topic and be a precis of the whole article. It now does none of that. I think all the postcode prose should be spil off to the article Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland which is currently a redirect to this page and this page should be refined to include the actual addressing requirements (per http://correctaddress.anpost.ie/pages/Search.aspx) as well a some history of the addressing in Ireland because apparently nothing happend between 1922 and 1990, (I have some of the older Eolai an Phoist that provide some details) plus a short section on the postcodes with a link to the then main Irish postcode article. ww2censor (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - seems sensible. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eircode information: original research?

I'm concerned about the Eircode information lacking sources. in particular the list of routing keys: as far as I know no list has been published anywhere officially (and I've looked very hard) by either Eircode, an Post or the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources. So this is presumably original research by someone? Should it be removed? Lozleader (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]