Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:41, 29 April 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:IMOS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ireland naming disputes. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ireland naming disputes at the Reference desk.

Northern Ireland place infoboxes and similar situations

For some, hopefully to be determined reason, when it comes to alternative language names we seem to be putting Ulster Scots names first followed by Irish names. Is there any reason for this? To me it flies in the face of common sense. On occasion the Irish name will be the original name of the place, the same can't be said of Ulster Scots to the best of my knowledge. The Irish language is far more common than Ulster Scots, and it also comes first alphabetically which is commonly used to sort things. So is there any compelling reason why Ulster Scots comes before Irish? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is becasue the argument used is for Scots (rather than Ulster Scots, specifically). In the UK infobox template, Scots comes higher up than Irish. A solution would be to re-arrange the position of Irish in the template or introduce a specific Ulster-Scots argument, which would come after Irish in the template, and make the appropriate changes across the affected articles.

In either case, I suggest the place to make this request is at the template talk page. --RA (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to get a consensus for a change to hundreds of Ireland related articles at the guideline that affects those articles first, before going to the template to ask for a technical change. Unless there's any compelling reason forthcoming within say the next seven days I'll take silence as consensus for it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is a swap even required? What compelling reason is there to edit a template that is used on hundreds of pages simply to impose primacy of one language over another? Is it not more important that the names are mentioned regardless of order? Seems a bit hair-brained to add yet another parameter to the UK infobox, a parameter that will essentially be the same as the "Scots" parameter thus increasing redundancy for the sake of placing Irish above Scots in Northern Ireland articles. In my opinion Ulster-Scots is simply a dialect of Scots, if we are to include dialects then by all means we should change the Irish parameter to state "Ulster-Gaelic". Mabuska 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why do you think Ulster Scots should have primacy, and where does it say that we're not allowed to request changes to a template that affects 100s of article, since that statement goes completely against the ethos of Misplaced Pages. Mo ainm~Talk 11:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we have to have arguments about things like this? My personal opinion is that unless there is a compelling reason the person who did the original work should be followed, as for BC/BCE and American/ British English etc. It gives a little biscuit to people who do something useful. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

An alphabetised order (with the exception of English-language names) would seem more logical and neutral though. It would stave off haggling over primacy of place also (with the exception of English, obviously, which has primacy not least because this is the English-language Misplaced Pages). I'm between minds on Mabuska's point re: "Scots" vs. "Ulster Scots". That sounds like meat for a separate discussion though. --RA (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no particular reason to give alphabetic order any primacy over what an author originally wrote. Certainly notan overriding reason. Alphabetic order is just some random order except it doesn't have the benefit of being random and so treating everything fairly. Dmcq (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly random. It is the standard way of arranging sequences of words. I hate to use a dictionary ordered in sequences of what entry was written first :-) It is also used to neutrally arrange any sequence of items that can be named (e.g. flags outside the European Parliament, graduands being called to collect their degrees, etc.). Alphabetical order is the usual way in which lists of all sorts are made on Misplaced Pages - not, whichever entry happened to be put in first. --RA (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a dictionary though is it? It isn't even a decent sized list. I don't notice the other entries being in alphabetic order either. Dmcq (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Mo ainm - I never said it should have primacy and i never said we're not allowed to request changes, that is an assumption on your part and a convolution of my statement at that. Another issue with adding a new parameter thats just going to be the same as Scots is that someone is going to have go trawl through the articles to change each infobox where a Scots name is given. Why create the extra workload when all that matters is that the names are given? Out of curiousity i see no kick-up about the non-alphabetical order of the "Recognised regional languages" in the United Kingdom infobox. Mabuska 21:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a matter for that article, and I don't know how it's worked out. The problem with alphabetical there is you end up with Cornish first, which is such a fringe language it was actually declared extinct!! Only 300 speakers, if you go to a Star Trek convention you might be able to find more people that that speaking Klingon. Not that I've got anything against Cornish, I'm just trying to explain why alphabetical order isn't a good idea on that infobox. I don't care what order they appear in on that infobox, it's not germane to this discussion. But if you really want to go down the consistency road, Irish appears before Ulster Scots in the UK infobox ;) The same doesn't apply to the infobox problem we're dealing with. Irish is more widely spoken than Ulster Scots, it's first alphabetically and also some/many (I won't profess to be in possession on the actual rough percentage) English place names are derived from the Irish name in the first place. Are you aware of a single English place name that has been derived from the Ulster Scots name?

If you're objecting to the change, then you're in favour of maintaining the status quo which leaves Ulster Scots first. You can't eat your cake and have it too. You can't ask "why should Irish have primacy" then refuse to answer "why should Ulster Scots have primacy". One language will have primacy in the infobox either way, and a case has been made for Irish to be first. There's no "first in best dressed" rule on Misplaced Pages, if it can be changed and a case has been made for it to be changed then it's up to those opposing the change to explain the merits of the current situation. I'll happily change every single template field from Scots to Ulster Scots personally if the change goes ahead, so objections on the time have no merit. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why must you and Mo ainm always resort to logical fallcy arguements? Can you not try to convince an editor with proper logic and reasoning without resorting to converse error to allege an editor must back B if they believe A. Such bad faith will surely win you support. You are requesting a change, so the onus is as much on you to provide as compelling a reason as possible for a change, not me or anyone else. You may feel any objections have no merit but you always feel that, however who says your reasonings have merit? If you want to convince an editor to agree with you, you have to answer their concerns or questions - you've failed to, instead using another logical fallcy, this time argumentum verbosium.

Now if you want me to agree with you (you wanted a consensus after all) then i would like you to address some points i made before with some new ones:

1. Are you saying that Ulster-Scots is an an actual language on par with Irish, English, Scots and Welsh?
2. If yes to the above then what firm evidence do you have that Ulster-Scots is an actual language and not just a dialect of Scots? Linguistic evidence would point to Ulster-Scots being a dialect of Scots and not a stand-alone language.
3. If it can't be reliably proven that Ulster-Scots is an actual language on its own and is simply a dialect of Scots, then should we not for the sake of consistency also state the dialect of Irish used in Northern Ireland rather than the parent tongue, i.e. Ulster Irish instead of Irish?
4. If it can't be proven that Ulster-Scots is an actual language on its own and is simply a dialect of Scots, and taking into account that Ulster Irish is classified as a dialect of Irish, and Hiberno-English and Mid-Ulster English are classified as dialects of English, and Ulster-Scots is classified as a dialect of Scots - then in the numbers game in terms of speakers (as RA basically said thats how its sorted, and you yourself have now made numbers a key arguement) what language has more speakers across the UK? Irish or Scots (obviously including dialects)?

Just a few questions you need to answer with meritable answers without using argumentum verbosium if you want me to back your proposal. Mabuska 10:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As Mabuska says, it all depends on whether we're classing Ulster-Scots as a seperate language to mainland Scots. Currently, its article is at Ulster Scots dialects, not Ulster Scots language, so it appears we're currently subscribing the view that it's a set of dialects, akin to Ulster Irish. JonC 10:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me it has nothing to do with whether Ulster Scots or Ulster Irish are dialects, but simply about which is the more widely spoken in Northern Ireland. The Holyhead infobox doesn't bother with the Scots name, even though Scots is more widely spoken than Welsh in the UK as a whole, because it's concerned with a place in Wales. The heading of this section is "Northern Ireland place infoboxes and similar situations", so obviously it's concerned with NI, not the UK as a whole. As 2 lines pointed out in his first post, not only is Irish more widely spoken in NI, but many of the place names concerned are derived from Irish names. That's why, in my view, the Irish name should come first. This has nothing to do with "primacy", which has overtones (probably not intended) of "hegemony". Scolaire (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't quite understand what point you're trying to make with the Holyhead example... My argument was in response to One Night in Hackney, who's angling at changing "Scots" to "Ulster-Scots". I don't see any problem with the current template – anyone can click on either link to see which one's more widely-spoken. JonC 15:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Hackney is "angling" to change anything to anything. He's simply saying that if Irish names are to go first (as I think they should for the reasons I gave above) then the template would need to be tweaked e.g. by adding Ulster Scots. It's a purely technical issue. My Holyhead example was a response to Mabuska's "in the numbers game in terms of speakers...what language has more speakers across the UK?" I was pointing out that infoboxes go by constituent country (I can't remember if you approve of that term or not), not in terms of "across the UK". Scolaire (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

From my reading of the above discussion, his preference would be for "Ulster-Scots" rather than just "Scots" in Northern Irish infoboxes, which pleads the question as to why not "Ulster Gaelic" too? They're both accepted by most sources as dialects of a language (including on Misplaced Pages), and only certain advocacy groups like the Ulster-Scots Language Society argue otherwise. And constituent country is fine... why wouldn't it be? JonC 18:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why, I only know that some people object to it. As regards your main question, the mere fact that there exists an Ulster-Scots Language Society, but not an Ulster Gaelic Language Society, is as good a reason as any why "Ulster Scots" might be used, but not "Ulster Gaelic". Scolaire (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but as I stated above, it's considered a dialect (or collection of dialects) of Scots by mainstream linguists and indeed here on Misplaced Pages (our article is at Ulster Scots dialects) – just as Ulster Irish is a dialect of Irish. That there aren't revivalist Ulster Gaelic enthusiasts that consider their form of the language to be a seperate one doesn't change that. By creating a seperate Ulster-Scots field for the infobox, we're recognising the fringe view of Ulster-Scots as a seperate language. JonC 19:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would see it as a tweak on purely technical grounds, not as "recognising" anything. But we must agree to differ. Scolaire (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jon and Mabuska. If we change 'Scots' to 'Ulster Scots' (without changing 'Irish') we'd be implying that it's an independent language. If we make a parameter for Ulster Scots then we may as well make parameters for Ulster Irish along with Insular Scots, Northern Scots, Central Scots and Southern Scots. ~Asarlaí 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that creating a field implies anything, but again, we'll have to agree to differ. Scolaire (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think quite a few reliable sources would be needed as to what is more commonly spoken in NI especially as many people speak Scots but dont realise it due to the similarity of the language to its cousin tongue English, something also not helped by ignorance and prejudice (by those who years ago called it 'bad' English). In regards to more places being derived from Irish than Scots - for the infobox that arguement means little i believe as the infobox per IMOS in regards to NI only provides the modern Irish name of a place. Its the lede that deals with any derives - and from personal experience from adding Irish placenames alongside Asarlai: in many cases they arent the same. Mabuska 20:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the Northern Ireland article, "In responses to the 2001 census in Northern Ireland 10% of the population claimed 'some knowledge of Irish', 4.7% to 'speak, read, write and understand' Irish", while "approximately 2% of the population claim to speak Ulster Scots". That information seems to be adequately sourced. I do, however, think that quite a few reliable sources would be needed for the contention that "many people speak Scots but dont realise it due to the similarity of the language to its cousin tongue English". Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

When I was visiting Glasgow with my wife she asked me are they speaking Gaelic?, I told her no that's English ;-) Should I have said Scots? I've not had any problem understanding anything there or reading Burns' poetry either but they are rather different. Dmcq (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I suspect that the situation regarding Scots, and to what extent it is spoken (either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland), and to what extent people realize they are speaking it or not, is probably fairly complicated and quite possibly rapidly changing. I'd strongly encourage Mabuska to look for those reliable sources, because I think the results might be very interesting indeed. I'd be tempted to do it myself but the nearest useful library for such matters is a couple of thousand miles, or a generous couple of thousand kilometres, away.

Just on a side issue, Mabuska, when you say the Irish placenames that English placenames in the North are derived from often differ from the modern Irish version of the name, do you mean considerably different in many cases, as opposed to just the differences resulting from modernized spelling? Just curious. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire i wouldn't trust any census done over here in regards to what language people use as there are bound to be many on both sides who'd lie about it for political reasons. Also consider that 10 years ago (and even today) there is a greater awareness about the Irish language compared to the Scots language.

Trying to remember sources from next to a decade ago will be tough for me considering the amount of time has passed since i had my head fully stuck in Scots language affairs. Though there were several reports that detailed how Scots in Ulster was treated as bad/slang/improper English, especially in Victorian times, and efforts were made to stamp it out as such. Even today it is treated the same by many.

In regards to ComhairleContaeThirnanOg's question, it depends on the place. Most are different due to orthography changes over the years whilst others are different altogether including from evolution or truncation. The modern Irish name used in the infoboxes is based upon Logainm, an organsation tasked with the job of creating modern Irish versions of place names in Ireland (which are then used by the Irish government). Many times these are different from the names that the English form derived from, exemplified by the Place-Names of Northern Ireland project by Queens University, Belfast, which uses phonetics and historical sources to find the most likely deriviation of a place name.

Examples of difference in orthography spellings would include the barony of Tirkennedy. Logainm states (in the pages archive section) its modern orthographic form as Tír Cheannada whereas it states it being derived ultimately from Tír Cennfota.

Examples of truncation would include Maghera, which Logainm gives as Machaire Rátha, meaning "plain of the fort", however it ultimately derives in all actuality from Machaire Ráth Lúraigh (plain of St. Lurach's fort).

Examples of completely different include Upperlands, which Logainm gives the modern as Áth an Phortáin, yet ultimately most likely derives (according to the Place-Names NI Project) from Áth an Phort Leathain. Mabuska 11:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to trust a census - it's up to you whether you do or not. But the sources satisfy WP:V and you haven't come up with any sources, reliable or otherwise, that say the opposite.

As regards derivation, the point 2 lines and myself were making is not that the English name is derived from the modern Gaelic name, but that it's derived from the Gaelic name. In many cases the modern Gaelic name is the same; in some it's not. Either way the name is derived from the Gaelic. I presume you are not aware of any place names that are derived from Scots, or you would have said so. Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Scolaire this discussion is now pointless as there is no consensus for Hackneys proposal, and it now seems to revolve around points i've made that you wish to contest. This discussion now serves no real purpose other than wind-bagging, but if you wish i'll refute you anyways. All examples by the way provided by the Place-Names of Northern Ireland project and the Ulster Place Names project.

I hope your not saying that all placenames are derived from Gaelic, for if you are then you've shown how little you know on the topic. Whilst most obviously derive from Gaelic, i suppose Newbridge, Newtonabbey, Monkstown, Jordanstown, Grey Abbey, Newbuildings, Stewartstown, Staffordstown, Coalisland, Strangford, Taylorstown, Gracehill, Whiteabbey, Castledawson, Cookstown, and Randalstown etc. etc. all derive from Gaelic as well? And not just settlements as many townlands like Kirkistown, Bogtown, Blakes Lower, Springvale, Biggerstown, Hightown, the countless Grange's are also purely non-Gaelic in origin though many share there name with a settlement such as Randalstown and Cookstown.

Just to point out you should be highly suspicious of the real origin of many townlands starting with "Bally" especially since the highest concentration of "Bally" prefixies are in Norman areas of Ireland. For example i suppose the following placenames of Gaelic origin were actually originally Gaelic placenames: Ballyhalbert (Talbotston), Ballyfrench (Frenes's town), Ballyfrenis (Frenestoun), Ballygraffan (Graffan's town), Ballyhemlin (Hemlinton), Ballywalter (Walterstown), Ballyatwood (Aquart's town), Ballycastle (Castletoun), Ballyferis (Prerestoun), Ballyhay (Hayton) - all originally Norman placenames and those examples are only in the Ards Peninsula never mind the rest of Norman Ulster which at one point stretched the whole way to Inishowen in County Donegal. Let's not delve into how many places that we can't tell were originally Norman places but contain Gaelicised Norman surnames or a mixture of Irish and English, we could be here all day and night.

In regards to your logical fallacy presumption - Brae meaning "hill/hillside" is a common Scots word in several placenames in Northern Ireland (usually mixed with another language) i.e. Dolly's Brae, Drumenagh Brae, Braemar, Braetown, Greenbrae, Brae, Sandy Braes. Another common Scots word is burn meaning "stream" i.e. Pennyburn, Millburn, Burnside, Cunningburn, and Mistyburn. Knowe meaning "little round hill" is another Scots word used in place names i.e. Clatteryknowes and Sandyknowes. Kirk which is Scots for "church" is used in Kirktown and Kirkhill.

Also if you paid any attention to my point on the problem of Scots, you'd realise it isn't easy to distinguish whether a placename is ultimately from English or Scottish or a mixture, especially when you consider how many words in both languages are very similar (both languages derive from Old English so any wonder) and spellings varied depending on pronounciation over the centuries. Add in the fact standardised English spellings only came into being just over a century ago, meaning the possible distinguishing factor has been lost, examples such as Randalstown for all intents and purposes could ultimately derive from English or Scots, especially seeing as Randal MacDonnell was Scottish.

Now if you wish to retort or discuss this matter further and recieve more enlightenment on the chequered and not so black-and-white history of Irish place names i suggest you take it to my talk page as it serves no real purpose here anymore. Mabuska 14:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Thank you for the very interesting essay. I agree that Hackney seems to have abandoned the project. Scolaire (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh no he hasn't

I was just waiting to see if people were going to come up with anything interesting. There are two essentially unrelated issues here:

1. Which language should come first in the infobox
2. How any change would be implemented

So as the arguments against Irish coming first appear to have descended into technical reasons, that would suggest to me there's consensus for Irish to come first. So all that remains is to thrash out how this is going to happen. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You said you would "change every single template field from Scots to Ulster Scots personally." I'm happy for you to do that. Scolaire (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean that. I meant if the field was going to stay as "Scots" or we were going to change it to "Ulster Scots". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We must be reading different discussions, then. I see no consensus for the template being changed to make Irish appear first. — JonC 12:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, just reading an article and surprised to see the Scots version of the name first in the info box, the Irish version is the precursor of the English term in what I was reading and it seems very strange to have the scots version first. 86.45.12.27 (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland

I have a question about item #3 in this list (I've changed bullets to numbers in this quote for ease of reference):

A consensus emerged with respect to referring to the island and the state in other contexts:

1. When referring to places and settlements in the Republic of Ireland in the introduction to articles (and in elements such as info boxes), use ] not ] or ] (e.g. "Cork is a city in Ireland").
2. In other places prefer use of ], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use ] (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland").
3. An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where ] should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland").
4. Regardless of the above guidelines, always use the official titles of state offices (e.g. "Douglas Hyde was the first President of Ireland").

I'm not sure what #3 is supposed to mean. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's original proposal in Jan 2010 says only that it "reflect common practice".

• Does it mean, "where the state forms a major component of the topic, prefer use of ], even where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context, and even where confusion may arise"? I don't see what is gained by risking confusion.
• The given example "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland" is not illuminating; the only place that sentence might plausibly occur is in the opening line of the Republic of Ireland article, where the first Ireland would not be wikilinked at all. Can someone give a better example of where #3 will be applied?

jnestorius 01:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I now also have a question about item 1 in this list. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shannon_Airport&diff=475794942&oldid=475475989. Another user reverted me quoting item 1, but I had always assumed this applied to phrases like "Galway is a city in Ireland", where people could read the initial sentence as relating to Ireland even though in the relatively unlikely event of their clicking on the link it would bring them to the article about the Republic of Ireland. The article about Shannon Airport is rather different because the first sentence is one which would be utterly misleading if understood to refer to Ireland, so I feel that common sense would indicate that using Ireland would be inappropriate here even if it was not - as I had assumed - covered by item 2 - since both the republic and the island were being discussed in the same paragraph. In other words in the cases to which it would appear that this provision of the IMOS is meant to apply, the opening lines of the articles are true for either meaning of Ireland, but this clearly does not apply here, so it seems to me very clear that the provision, which only works where that would be the case, should not apply here either. This is agonizing even to attempt to outline here, but any comments? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That would have been me CCTirnanOg, my reading of it would be common practice is to use ] unless the topic is about the island, Northern Ireland or any two or more of them. On Shannon airport it mentions the island once and I pipelinked it as ]. Give the primacy of use of Ireland as the state I would presume is common practice, pipelinking the island like example 3. The only reason for confusion would be if the usage alternated back and forth. I edited an article which never mentioned the island the other day and removed "Republic of" from a sentence as the island was never mentioned and an editor put it back stating confusion may arise, Ireland has two meanings even when only one is used. The edits of primacy to the island where it is not a major factor would be wrong and, basically equate to using Republic of Ireland continously.Murry1975 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring the example I think you are, that was me on Ballina, County Mayo. I didn't bother arguing it, but there is definitely the potential for confusion in the intro of said article – the way it reads now doesn't make it clear whether Ballina has the highest unemployment on the island or in the state. Per WP:IRE-IRL, that is exactly the situation when Republic of Ireland should be used. I admire your dedication to enforcing the MOS, Murry, but I think you may be being a little bit over-zealous! — JonC 10:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would an article on a place in the state refer to the island without indicating such? Thats the main point of common sense bud :). It isnt over zealous, its just guidelines are too flimsy, which is why IMOS talk is here to help us. Also it wasnt ] it was plain unpipelinked Republic of Ireland. Murry1975 (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume that some editors deliberately and mischievously allege "confusion" over whether the island or the state is being referred to in articles, disregarding the context of the article and to the detriment of common sense. Unless the "reader" assumes that the state and the island is the same thing, there's no way someone could be confused. And even if this was the case, somebody who thought the island and the state was the same thing wouldn't be enlightened by substituting with "Republic of Ireland" - that type of ignorance goes beyond mere wikilinking and pipelinking, and would require all content to append a mini-explanation after each use along the lines of Republic of Ireland (the state consisting of 26 out of 32 counties on the island of Ireland). Although sometimes I feel some editors around here would rejoice at that.... --HighKing (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Why would an article on a place in the state refer to the island without indicating such?" I don't get this at all. That logic suggests that anybody reading an article about a place in the Republic will assume that any reference to "Ireland" means the Republic, and not the whole island. I don't see any good reason for that assumption. Jon C is absolutely right - where there's a reference to "the greatest unemployment in Ireland", people are liable to assume that it means the greatest unemployment in all of Ireland, not just in the state. In these cases, disambiguation in the text is essential. That's quite different from saying that "Cork is a city in ], as recommended in the manual of style, which will not mislead anyone regardless of how they interpret "Ireland". ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of this was cover before and some the rest in the archives , second mention as pointed above . Shannon airport was edited by myself and re-edited by CCTirnanOG, their point being its not a settlement, "When referring to places and settlements" but if I am not mistaken its still a place. As for example 3, common sense should be used or we would have the mini-explanation of HighKings. Confusion could occur if the state and island where used throughout with clarification, when the state is being discussed and the island breifly mentioned the ]</nowiki]] sholud be used and conversely if the island is the main topic use <nowiki>] and ].Murry1975 (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"That logic suggests that anybody reading an article about a place in the Republic will assume that any reference to "Ireland" means the Republic, and not the whole island", why thats logic bud, if I talk about Hong Kong my references to China arent going to be Taiwan. The way to differentiate is use the guidelines above. "the greatest unemployment in Ireland", people are liable to assume that it means the greatest unemployment in all of Ireland, not just in the state" Why does Ireland when no other mention of it is given other than the state draw to the whole island? Why? Your basic point CCtnO is that Ireland only refers to the island and has no other usage, or am I getting that point wrong?Murry1975 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd have just phrased it as highest unemployment in the country for the state or the whole of Ireland for the island. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Murry75 - yes, you're getting it wrong. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you'll have to forgive us for picking it up that way, especially when you use comments such as "people are liable to assume that it means the greatest unemployment in all of Ireland, not just in the state." That statement rather sums up the point.

My view is rather simple. Why would an "island" produce unemployment stats? They're published by official bodies of government - the article context makes it clear that Ireland refers to the state. Similarly, administrative bodies such as counties are objects of government and airports operate within the jurisdiction of a state. I understand that if you're British, then the name under UK law is "Republic of Ireland", but this is the English *language* encyclopedia, so we can safely assume that others will not be as confused. --HighKing (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the point of your first paragraph at all. Murry75 suggested that I thought "Ireland" could only refer to the whole island and not to the state, and you quote a sentence in which I refer to both possible meanings as supporting this misinterpretation of my position? Odd. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there's unemployment stats for continents and other non-national divisions. Why is it any more illogical that there would exist unemployment stats for Ireland than for, say, Europe? And as for "Republic of Ireland (the state consisting of 26 out of 32 counties on the island of Ireland)": I know you're just being facetious to prove a point, but come on – the state already has a natural disambiguator (one that's currently being used as its title), so that won't be neccessary. Or is this more to do with your personal dislike for the term "Republic of Ireland"? — JonC 12:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The British government does now use Ireland instead of Republic of Ireland wherever possible if it doesn't lead to problems, the law about using the Republic of Ireland has been deliberately ignored since the Belfast Agreement even if it hasn't been formally repealed. Dmcq (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree that the natural assumption is that the state s meant if unemployment figures are given. Anything else would need a special marker. We don't have unemployment figures for the British Isles. Have you ever even seen unemployment figures for North America including both the US and Canada? The next largest reasonable grouping would be the EEC. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced about the unemployment example, though it was perhaps a bad one for me to bring up. If you say, "Ireland's unemployment rate is x%", then that would almost certainly be unambiguous, because, as you say, one doesn't often talk about unemployment figures for anything other than administrative jurisdictions or suchlike. But if you say "X has the highest unemployment rate in Ireland", people might well interpret it in much the same way as "Carrantouhill is the highest mountain in Ireland" and assume that Ireland as a whole is meant rather than the state. Less likely than for the mountain, but still possible. Anyway, the article in question was about an airport, not about unemployment rates. Neither the state nor the island were in themselves topics of the article, so it does not fall into the exception for cases where "the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance)". It would therefore seem common sense to apply the usual means of disambiguation when both are being mentioned, as per the phrase in the manual of style, "In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland")." (my emphasis)

In any case, the issue should not really be a theological or jurisprudential attempt to interpret the Manual of Style (which in any case, we can always amend if we find it unhelpful or inadequate). Rather, we should be trying to keep articles as informative and logical as possible, and avoid usages that potentially puzzle, confuse or mislead readers. I know that some people strongly dislike the term "Republic of Ireland", but its use on occasions like this is the easiest way to avoid that. For anyone who naturally thinks of the island when they see an unqualified reference to Ireland - and I think there is every reason to believe that there are plenty such people - the previous formulation of the article on Shannon airport could only be confusing. Certainly a look at the links behind the text would tell you what was going on, but the text itself should be clear and not be causing people to think it didn't make sense. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems over the top to say it is the third busiest in the state and then fifth in the island. Personally I'd just put in the island figure and say 'island of Ireland', people can work out anything else for themselves since it is all listed. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Murry75, that silent revert 5 days later on the page in question with an edit summary of "adjust for comp" (what on earth does that mean anyway?) was hardly a particularly convincing answer to the discussion here. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit for comprise, btw you edit against wp:ire-irl again and qouted this discussion , where does it say to edit against WP:IRE-IRL ('Clarify "Ireland" - should not be used as reference to state where island is also under discussion - ref discussion on this topic on IMOS talk page) above? Murry1975 (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So enforcing your personal obsession that "Ireland" should not be used to refer to what is at the Misplaced Pages article on "Ireland", even at the cost of turning the article into confusing nonsense, is your idea of a compromise? Dmcq suggested an actual compromise above, which I said would be fine by me. You didn't respond but then enforced your confusing preference, at the cost of compromise and with zero regard for the priority that should be given to making Misplaced Pages useful and understandable to its users rather than a forum for its editors to ride their ideological hobbyhorses. Very unimpressive. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Where have I stated personal? Please refrain from PA. The article is not confusing as per WP:IRE-IRL it is pipelinked correctly. Yes his comprise means using Ireland and island of Ireland just as I edited. I dont enforce, I edit. Now please refrain from your PAs and show where your edit was given preference over IMOS.Murry1975 (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

PS I am not here to impress, if you are you are on the wrong website. We are here to help the project, by using the guidelines btw.Murry1975 (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm with Murry1975 on that article lead. It looks fine to me just saying Ireland and if people still aren't sure it refers to the state and separates it from the island of Ireland. Airports are principally in countries, there is a bit of a chance of people not realizing but the lead does a good job of avoiding that. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats what I taught you meant Dmcq by your comment above, it clearly indicates which is which and conforms within the guidelines sshown in IMOS. Murry1975 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Carlingford Lough

Seeking advice on this Misplaced Pages page. In an attempt to increase accuracy and understand of this page, an edit suggestion has been made to include Northern Ireland in the location field of the infobox. This is the only NI related page using this lake template that does not include Northern Ireland in the field. Objections have included "Northern Ireland is not a country" ans the edit is POV. Please can editors advise? DR suggested that NI would be a helpful edit. An RFc is open for this but has reached a deadlock with ridiculous pov objections.this page has suffered years of edit warring and the suggested change would return the page to its original view pre edit wars.Hackneyhound (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You have forum shopped now quiet a bit on this topic, all with no consensus for the change you wish to make, I'm curious have you ever edited under a different name? Mo ainm~Talk 13:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification, one editor at DR said NI would be helpful incorrectly basing their judgement on WP:IRE-IRL, . Murry1975 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mo, 1. This is my first venture onto wiki, and 2, Murry directed me here.

Murry who are you to judge on whether a user has interpreted the IMOS incorrectly? Seriously? I would take value from the opinion of a non involved admin over your POV. Please stop stalking me. Please read WP:CIV.Hackneyhound (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:IRE-IRL deals with the use of Ireland not Northern Ireland. BTW he wasnt admin, just an editor. Also its not point of view. Again I am not stalking you this is on my watchlist, I have a lot of things on it. Have you not read WP:CIVIL yet? You have just double misrepresented above, I will assume good faith on the last one but the saying the DR suggested NI would be helpful when only one editor did and there was no consensus from the DR is definite misrepresentation which is covered in WP:CIVIL, as you have been asked to read this and claim to have you know this already. Murry1975 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, a border dispute :) Isn't Ireland mentioned enough times at WP:LAME already? Let's just leave that talk page to slog it out, the notice about it here is good enough and people can go there to discuss it. Dmcq (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nationality of Northern Irish people

Much POV pushing goes on in this area with claims and counter claims that people from Northern Ireland are British or Irish or both. I suggest the following; if there is no evidence in the form of quality references that a person describes themselves as British, Irish or anything else for that matter, then by default, and for biographical articles, they should be stated as being "Northern Irish" in the lead paragraph. This should also apply to the mentioning in non biographical articles of people from Northern Ireland. This has possibly already been agreed. If this is so, there a number of editors disregarding it. Van Speijk (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What about sources stating either Irish or British, even if they themselves have not stated such? And we must remember sporting nationality is solely based on the country they have represented. And do we pipeling British to UK or Irish to Republic of Ireland then? As pipelinking Irish to Irish people is done as well, for instance Darron Gibson is Irish, most definitely, but where do we pipe to? Some editor had Irish piped to Northern Irish, and this would be wrong in that instance. Murry1975 (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How about just saying they were born in Northern Ireland and only doing anything else if they specifically asserted an identity? For sport one can say they played for whoever. All nice and straightforwardly factual. In references from elsewhere one needn't put in any nationality unless it is very relevant and then the person should have asserted it or they should be playing for a team or whatever. In fact for Darron Gibson I'd be perfectly happy for the Irish to be removed from the first line and just say who he played for. Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, identity in Northern Ireland is more complex than that. While, "Northern Irish" may be shared by the two communities to a larger extent that "Irish" or "British", it is no less a statement of identity. And it is also by no means universally accepted. Indeed, "Northern Irish" can raise feeling (sometimes very strongly felt) that it is a manufactured identity. It shouldn't be seen as "neutral" or as not having baggage of its own. Consequently, if we are avoiding "Irish" or "British" (I agree with this) then we should avoid "Northern Irish" for the same reason.

I agree with Dmcq, the default should be simply "from Northern Ireland", unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise. And care should be taken to not to make one's "sporting nationality" appear as a statement of nationality (e.g. "... is an Irish footballer" → "... plays for the Republic of Ireland").

Like many things to do with Northern Ireland, it's best to defly avoid bald statements (no matter how straight-forwared they may appear at surface level) and instead make more mundane (but more sure footed) statements of genuine fact. --RA (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Van Speijk suggests a default of Northern Irish, if no source could be found, this would fit better than the from Northern Ireland. I have read bios, American ones that dont mention either America or American in the lead or the article in some case, just city and state, and I in my opinion they leave too much out. Wiki is meant to be informitive to all, those that know a little and those who know a lot. The rest of them where their are sources they should be used. The sports nationality should be used as it is in sports articles. If we were to start changing bios we would have to make sure we do it with inclusiveness of the relevant wiki projects or thier guidelines. Murry1975 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read that Northern Irish v. from Northern Ireland point before, I just cant figure out where. If I remember I will look up that and find out what the outcome was. It was on an article , old age and my memory!! Murry1975 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

From Northern Ireland seems like the correct NPOV solution to me. Bjmullan (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree, From Northern Ireland, is the only neutral solution to me. Mo ainm~Talk 22:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So why should Northern Ireland be treated differently? We don't say "from England" or from "Australia" or whatever. What's your probelm with "Northern Irish"? You really do need to read up on precisely what NPOV means - here's a primer; it means giving both sides of an argument equal coverage, and it has nothing to do with facts that some people have a problem with. Van Speijk (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They don't have international agreements about anything like this. Dmcq (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is someone from Buncrana or Carndonagh Northern Irish? Mo ainm~Talk 22:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if they were born in Northern Ireland. Van Speijk (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They are born in some of the most Northern points of Ireland. Mo ainm~Talk 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, Just put Northern Irish. It's the most accurate and stops any misleading POV being included. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm, "Northern Irish" is misleading POV depending on which articles it is being added to. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It should only be used if a source could not be found to show Irish or British as a nationality. Darron Gibson, James McClean, Martin McGuinness, and the such who are Irish and have shown thier belief that they are Irish would be, well Irish. Where as source can be found is fine, but I dont think just saying from Northern Ireland is a great benefit, the 3 mentioned (and many more) are from NI yet Irish. I undersatnd that its only the third most common choice in NI and this may be a problem for some. NI is an mix of people with different national views, and "labeling" them one or another may not be best but from Northern Ireland instead of Northern Irish is not something I am convinced of. Murry1975 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why this burning desire to label people? The Good Friday Agreement says in effect people can choose something different every second day or two at the same time or whatever they like. Can't you be happy with a little grey? 'From Northern Ireland' is perfectly okay and there's no way they can choose to be born in two different places at the same time. Shades of 'are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist' is what I think about all this. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My concern with a "grey area" is that POV pushers would have the opportunity to either remove the nationalities sourced and just leave from, or at a later time, not only the POV pushers but good faith editors, could insert the incorrect nationality. Leaving it out, could be a way forward if we dont know, but if it is sourced it should be added. If we use a default of Northern Irish, I am begining to see would be OR, and lack sources, as none of the three would have been ref'ed. If we use default from NI we would basically leave a grey area, as you put it, but leave a way for POV pushers in general. Murry1975 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be impossible to describe Wolverhampton-born loyalist Billy Wright as being from Northern Ireland, yet Northern Irish loyalist or Ulster loyalist is accurate. Not all people who are associated with Northern Ireland were born there such as Wright and Michael Stone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The 1998 Agreement affirmed "the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose". "Northern Irish" is not a nationality and many people would not wish to be labelled in that way; nor should a single term such as "from Northern Ireland" be foisted on people who have the right to describe themselves otherwise. A reasonable amount of common sense can be applied here. Even if there is no specific source for it, it is sensible to assume that, for example, most Sinn Féin politicians would choose to describe themselves as Irish, and should be so described here; equally sensible to assume that most DUP politicians would not opt for that as their nationality. Editors should proceed on a case-by-case basis: "from Northern Ireland" may be useful in cases where there is no reason to opt for British or Irish. Brocach (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Brocach, maybe you phrased that wrong ""Northern Irish" is not a nationality", for some it is and is regarded as a most definite sporting nationality in this encyclopaedia, so could you expand on what you meant by this. Cheers. Murry1975 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Northern Irish is not a nationality? As far as I know it's as much a nationality as English, Scottish or Welsh. Van Speijk (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975, your reference to a 2001 source is not to nationality but to self-identification of "the way you think of yourself". Van Speijk, "as far as you know" is not far enough for the purposes of an encyclopaedia. "Northern Irish" is (still) not a nationality. Brocach (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So what's your take on English, Scottish and Welsh? Van Speijk (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss WP:IMOS topics, not to explore my thinking. Take your new theme to the relevant talk pages please... Brocach (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A predictable response, dodging a pertinent issue. It's relevant for me to ask you in this argument for your views on a comparison between Northern Irish and, say, Welsh, nationality. Your avoiding the question speaks volumes. Van Speijk (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Predict away, and interpret away; I am here to talk about WP:IMOS, not for an 'argument' about Welsh nationality. Brocach (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Brocach if here is not to explore your thinking dont type it in. "Northern Irish" is a valid nationality, the survey was how they think about themselves, some identified as Northern Irish, others British others Irish, yet you are saying they arent identifying as Northern Irish nationality which as it isnt specifically mentioned. So what nationality would you say Michael O'Neill is? His bio says Northern Irish, the Irish Independent, the biggest selling Irish newspaper I think, says Northern Irish "The Northern Irishman was overcome with pride". Of course you could claim this is a generic term for someone from Northern Ireland, so I could call you Northern Irish then? Murry1975 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry - biased phrasiology in IMOS must go

The existing version:

To avoid constant renaming of articles (and more), keep a neutral point of view, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute, a compromise solution was proposed and accepted regarding the Derry/Londonderry name dispute.

Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles, except when referring to the GAA county of Derry. Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the organisation; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry.

The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate.

Proposed version:

There is a Derry/Londonderry name dispute, and a compromise solution was proposed here.

The arguments for the following solutions were; avoid constant renaming of articles, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and to avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute.

Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles, except when referring to the GAA county of Derry. Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the organisation; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry.

The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate.

Reasoning:

The proposed version uses less commanding language regarding the compromise (and loose language too), and removes the direct insinuation that Londonderry represents a 'POV' (whether the equal of Derry or not). Compromise aside, Londonderry simply cannot be a WP:POV, as it's sovereign. So the compromise cannot represent "no point of view", as IMOS claims.

I do realise that attempting more than one thing at once guarantees no change at all in bias-protected areas like this, but what the heck. Why can certain people fiddle around with it from time to time and not others? It's a UK issue - it shouldn't even be in IMOS (which supposedly represents two countries somehow - just because they are on the same island).

PS. I do not appreciate all my changes being edit-warred away over the denial of my NPOV point - you made no attempt to re-introduce it to the list Brochach, you just reverted the lot. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to me that you hadn't read the long discussion that led to the present consensus on Derry/Londonderry nomenclature. Your change was thus unjustified. The substance of the change you are proposing is the deletion of the objective to "keep a neutral point of view" and the deletion of the word "was agreed". In fact, the objective of keeping an NPOV was clearly central to the debate, and the compromise reached has by and large been accepted, though like any compromise it fails to please all of the people all of the time. You use the word "sovereign" very oddly: can you explain in what sense the word, or the city or county if that's what you mean, is "sovereign"? Brocach (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what you wrote in the edit note in your second revert of my text above: Last revert (ie of my attempt to reason with you) is based on a misreading; nothing here suggests that Londonderry is any more POV than Derry; compromise is use both.

Brochach, Derry and Londonderry ARE NOT equal forms of 'POV'. Londonderry IS the sovereign name of the city. Northern Ireland IS British.

This simple fact that Northern Ireland is British has determinedly been made into a 'POV' on Misplaced Pages, which Irish nationalists insist must be "evenly weighted" against their own Irish Nationalist 'POV' for "balance". It's utter bullshit. We shouldn't even be having this discussion in here - NI is in the UK (and the island/state definition of 'Ireland' has been deliberately blurred across the encyclopedia - not least in the hugely-political 'island' article, and everywhere else besides).

There shouldn't actually need to be 'compromises' here - a proper guideline on sovereignty would sort this biased nonsense out. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Promise not to call me a fool but I again have to repeat a question since you haven't answered: what on earth is a "sovereign name" for a city? I genuinely have no idea what that means. Brocach (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That really stretches AGF. The UK is a sovereign state. Derry is in the UK. Londonderry is the British name. What is there not to understand here? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the proposed version are wholly inappropriate for a style guide. The second one appears to have downgraded the actual consensus to "argumenents in favour of Derry" or something similar. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I just don't know how you can say that. MOS should be direct and concise. The current one that you prefer is indirect, over familiar and leading. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If the consensus is to be changed then first of all a good replacement or amendment needs to be thought up and debated a bit and then an RfC done. Just saying British isn't going to cut it when the majority of the city itself think otherwise and most of the references say Derry, anyway only a little more than a third of people in Northern Ireland think of themselves primarily as British as opposed to Northern Irish or Irish. I would support a change so articles where the chief sources say Londonderry should say Londonderry but the name of the article on the city should definitely be Derry according to Misplaced Pages policies. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is British, Londonderry is British, the primary sources are British. Your "anyway" line says everything anyone needs to about your whole comment - you are claiming that (further from Derry) Northern Ireland is no longer British enough. Whether that is true or not (and I would suggest that Oirland is not getting the defectors - NI as a country is), Northern Ireland still remains British. You cannot equally weight nationalist sources with sovereign ones. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources in Misplaced Pages are graded only on reliability, not Britishness. The majority of references in WP:Reliable sources say Derry. See WP:Article titles for the Misplaced Pages policy on article titles.Dmcq (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You also have to follow Weight, redflag, Point and NPOV too - Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a brutal source-finding numbers contest. The sheer exploitation that comes from isolating Verifiability in this area in particular is why there needs to be a specific sovereign guideline. Many people call Londonderry 'Londonderry' and it's simply the sovereign name. You will find that 99% of non-silly Misplaced Pages articles label in the most 'official' (comprehensive, academic, encyclopedic, adult basically) way, mainly because they have no reason not to. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Matt you keep using the word sovereign as it is some sort of magic trump card. Perhaps you could explain why you think this is the case? Bjmullan (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You can see it as a "magic trump card" if you like, but the UK is a Sovereign State, and Londonderry is the legal name for the city. Despite various attempts by Sin Fein et al, no one has managed to change that. It's also is widely-used too, whatever the majority in the area might say (and using Ireland for sources isn't weighted, as it has never given up its claim on Northern Ireland). Matt Lewis (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bjmullan, sovereign is a noun which means authority or of the authority, he must mean this. Murry1975 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Derry City (ie your link) is the name of a council district, Murray1975 - it's not describing Londonderry the city. There are places all over the UK that follow similar naming patterns, and Misplaced Pages has separate articles for those jurisdictions.

Why do you think you get articles like this (from 2010)?:

"A controversial plan to change Londonderry's name was thrown into chaos last night when three separate motions were voted down at Derry City Council.

Unionists voted alongside the SDLP to knock back a Sinn Fein proposal to go ahead with attempts to remove the 'London' prefix from the city's name.

It demonstrates perfectly that Derry City Council and the City of Londonderry are two different things.

The reason for daily newspaper articles like this one (from today) is a sovereign legality that has never changed. You Don't Like It, but it's simply true. By the way, the Londonderry/Derry Naming Dispute article seems to be rather biased to me in terms of 'media use (citation needed - ahem)'. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

To argue against the straightforward policy you need to do an RfC and get a consensus that something else is better for the encyclopaedia. By the way it seems odd to argue here for the official government name rather than the usual name and yet argue that Northern Ireland is a country rather than a province. Dmcq (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

'Province' is not a legal name, so in that instance 'country' does win per COMMONUSE (and critically UK government use too). It's not "odd" at all. I'm not playing games here - quite the contrary. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Province is the standard international legal description of Northern Ireland as requested by the British government and enshrined in ISO 3166-2:GB. WP:COMMONNAME applies to the names of topics, it does not say that 'county' must be used in the lead of the article, and in fact the article describes the controversy just like it should. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Framing it as you have done, that is just a lie. 'Province' is not 'legal' and never was - just first-used and then 'allowable', and has always been described as thus. Be careful how you mislead people Dmcq. ISO discounts "country" because it defines the term for it's own purposes - as a sovereign state. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It says England, Scotland and Wales are countries and Northern Ireland is a province. There is no framing or misquoting or lying. Get your facts right. Dmcq (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't have to use legal so-called "sovereign" names, that's enshrined in policy. Perhaps you could explain why in the last few days the same newspaper says Derry here and here, to name but two? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages doesn't have to use legal so-called "sovereign" names, that's enshrined in policy." I wouldn't say "enshrined", but it will have to have a guideline on 'sovereignty' though, becuse Irish nationalists have bent the encyclopedia all over the place for years. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, your two links: the first uses the City of Derry district (and the terms Derry man) and Londonderry (the city) in the same article! The second uses just the district. The source I used (from the same paper) just used Londonderry the actual city. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll find WP:AT is indeed policy and does indeed say "Misplaced Pages does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". More fact checking, less spouting shit please. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How about you stop making it your life's aim to abuse Misplaced Pages? This is not any "subject" - the UK is a sovereign state constantly under nationalistic pressures in these areas. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Se let me get this clear, what we are now saying is that there are 3 areas:

1. Londonderry - with is a the plantation city - is that just the part inside the walls?
2. Derry City - which is the modern city where everyone lives - presumably it includes Londonderry as well?
3. The county - which also includes both cities?

Is that correct? Fmph (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. Derry City is a disctrict area that includes areas outside of Londonderry (and these district areas have their own articles on Misplaced Pages - see below), it's not the legal name for the city. It's not uncommon anywhere where names collide. Please see my quoted sources.

From the Misplaced Pages article:

Derry City Council is a district council in County Londonderry in Northern Ireland. The Council is is responsible for the city of Derry and the immediate environ, providing services to an estimated population of 109,800 (2010), making it the third largest district council in Northern Ireland by population.

That article is fine - it's the Derry article that needs to change - ie become Londonderry (also known as Derry). Matt Lewis (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Derry article needs nothing, you just want it to change. This has been done to death and in my opinion the current solution works really well so I for one strongly oppose any change. Bjmullan (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromises sometimes just happen, but their temporary nature must be understood. It's not about fighting battles that last forever: the correct way has to be found. And it's actually sitting there to be taken - it just simply upsets Irish nationalists. But so what? Nationalism is by-definition a dream, Sovereignty is simply a reality. The is a British Northern Ireland issue, not an Irish one. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The correct name is Londonderry, which is what it has been ever since King James I changed the name in 1613. (92.10.140.241 (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

No one is disputing the official name is Londonderry. The question is what should the article be called under Misplaced Pages's policies. The consensus has been that WP:COMMONNAME is the applicable part of WP:Article titles. Dmcq (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But was WP:Weight applied? Applying WP:Weight would dictate Londonderry. COMMONAME simply doesn't outweigh wp:Weight, and is on the lower-rung of policy for good reason: most if not all other policy considerations must come before it. For a start - regarding Weight - how can you include Irish sources when they still lay a claim on Northern Ireland? And surely the UK sources (esp the government ones) are simply more important than the amount of colloquial ones in use? Were all the 'Derry' sources compiled actually referring to the city or the City of Derry district? One Night in Hackney (called 'K' whatever) messed up on that one just a few comments above - and it's easily done if you're not being careful. Was the political sensitivity taken into account at all - ie how various Irish nationalist groups keep trying to get it changed but are not able to? (ie that keeping Londonderry is so important to the UK?). When the 'politics' is like that, isn't 'official' ALWAYS the safest option? It's why I always say "sovereign first", esp when making choice like here just can't be avoided. I'll never be convinced that people really went digging for Londonderry sources either: there's too much of the old cabal around, who have always made sure that the article was called Derry no matter what. Sorry, but this is Misplaced Pages/UK-Ireland. Any neutral reading my 5 or 6 points above would surely see that it's got to be 'Londonderry'.. (also called Derry) - and not the other way around. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mess up at all. You might want to read the sources in the Derry article, and see who they say use Derry for the common name. Like I said before, more fact checking and less shit spouting. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 23:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't know the difference between the city and the district, even when your sources use Londonderry as well as Derry. You just see what you want to see, and it's Ireland uber alles with you. As I've said above - jumping to COMMONNAME and avoiding all other policy is a massive abuse of NPOV - and of course your 'Derry' sources will be full of (City of) Derry's - it's bound to happen with the two definitions in existence. Like with "British Isles", sometimes you just don't know exactly which definition people mean. The city is NOT the district (or the county for that matter). But with you people these kind of sources always mean exactly what you want them to mean. And anyway, even the genuine Derry sources (and there is a fair number out there I'm sure) can never be evenly Weighted with the 'official' sources anyway, as I keep saying. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Go and lie down in a darkened room, Matt Lewis. This issue has been done to death, the city is and will remain known primarily as Derry: WP articles invariably refer also to "Londonderry", the lesser-used term for which you have invented the absurd concept of "sovereign name" - I challenge you to find a single other relevant usage of "sovereign name". If (when) you can't, give up. Brocach (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The policies have been applied correctly. As it says in the policy

• Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)
• Caffeine (not 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)
• Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus)
• Heroin (not Diacetylmorphine)

...

• Rhode Island (not State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations)

...

• United Kingdom (not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

.... Dmcq (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You either haven't read a single word I've written, or you're a slimeball, or you're troll. Either way, you'll scroll all this away to fight another day. As year after year after year you always do. You sad, sad, sad bunch of people. You major minor scoop of decadently committed people. You think I need a source to neolise the word "sovereign"? To conflate a little meaning to try and save a little space? To try and get an clear and obvious point across? There is simply no way in with you people - you would drive anyone to farce. Though in reality you all simply drive everyone away. These Troubled areas are like a Drive Out where the same C movie runs over forever. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit break (Derry/Londonderry ... )

If anyone is driving people away from WP it is people like you who do not AGF, who use WP as a soapbox and also attack other editors. A couple of days ago I suggested that one of your rants should be removed as per WP:SOAP, today I suggest the above is removed as per WP:NPA. Your current attitude will get you absolutely nowhere here. Bjmullan (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Except blocked, with any luck. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This has descended into plain old trolling. Best ignored. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly - nobody should put an "Edit break" before someone else's (ie my) reply - it's bad manners. It's pretty simple - put it before your own comment, and compose it accordingly.

Secondly - "your current attitude will get you nowhere here"? Of course it won't. I want to see the correct thing happen for both Northern Ireland and Misplaced Pages, and it of course it will never be allowed to happen in an Irish MOS. Northern Ireland should never be covered by IMOS - it's skewered the poltical context and given you people total control of it. Ireland still lays claim on NI, and this MOS clearly covers political areas (despite the endless bare-faced lie that it's island-only). It doesn't make any sense. NI is a British country, not an Irish one. It HAS to be part of a UK MOS. The calculated blurring of island/Ireland on Misplaced Pages makes this the single most corrupt area in the whole encyclopedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We need a WP:UKMOS, which would, of course, include Northern Ireland and would come ahead of WP:IMOS with respect to Northern Ireland. I notice style guides for other regions so we can set one up for the UK and see how it develops. Van Speijk (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

and given you people total control of it: Let added Misplaced Pages is not a battleground to policies/guideline you seem to ignore. Bjmullan (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"You people", and just what is that supposed to mean? Don't forget that anyone is at liberty to contibute to the proposed MOS, and it's precisely because as far as NI is concerned Misplaced Pages is a battle ground, that we need such a document. Van Speijk (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Van Speijk, have you asked abrcom about it? The rulings on IMOS are from them not anyone else. Trying to remove part of IMOS is actually a breach of an Abrcom ruling as far as I can make out, I am sure the editors on here longer than I could inform you if it is. As far as I am aware thier ruling on what Ireland is directly affects Ireland manual of style, and they should have been asked before anyone :tried to move a vote on changing this. Murry1975 (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, to clear that up, it Matt should have enquired first to suggest it here aswell as Van speik before he brought it here. Murry1975 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Note: Per the above arbitration, in the section titled "Guidelines" it clearly states "Disruption: The editing of users who disrupt Misplaced Pages by aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be restricted. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site." The level of personal attacks and incivility has reached a point were notice must be given. All editors are now aware of these restrictions and should conduct themselves accordingly. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, a request for enforcement of the WP:TROUBLES arbitration has been filed here in relation to posts by Matt Lewis's over the past week. --RA (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)