| Revision as of 16:04, 25 November 2008 editMatt Lewis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,196 editsm →Proposed move to Ireland (island): m← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:22, 7 January 2025 edit undoMossWoodMetric (talk | contribs)54 edits →Ireland is not a "British" isle: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Move|Ireland (island)|section=Proposed move to Ireland (island)}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{Calm|lightgreen}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Hiberno-English}} |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=19:28, 15 April 2006 |
|
|action1date=19:28, 15 April 2006 |
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|action1result=listed |
| Line 18: |
Line 19: |
|
|action3result=not listed |
|
|action3result=not listed |
|
|action3oldid=247349387 |
|
|action3oldid=247349387 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAN |
|
|
|action4link=Talk:Ireland/GA2 |
|
|
|action4date=11:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|action4result=listed |
|
|
|action4oldid=354414345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAR |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Ireland/2 |
|
|
|action5date=08:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|action5result=delisted |
|
|
|action5oldid=936577796 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|topic=geography |
|
|topic=geography |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WPB |
|
|
|1={{WikiProject Ireland|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=top}} |
|
|2={{WikiProject Celts|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Celts|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islands}} |
|
|3={{Project Catholicism|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject UK geography|importance=Top}} |
|
|4={{WP1.0|class=B|category=Geography|coresup=yes|WPCD=yes}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|5={{FAOL|Astur-Leonese|ast:Islla d'Irlanda}} |
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
|6={{WPUKgeo|class=B|importance=}} |
|
|
|
| subject = article |
|
|
| author = Shane Hegarty |
|
|
| title = Misplaced Pages at 20: Did you know Will Ferrell was once not killed in a paragliding incident? |
|
|
| org = ] |
|
|
| url = https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/wikipedia-at-20-did-you-know-will-ferrell-was-once-not-killed-in-a-paragliding-incident-1.4450726 |
|
|
| date = 2021-01-10 |
|
|
| quote = Its entry on “Ireland” is typical: “The earliest evidence of human presence in Ireland is dated at 10,500 BC. Gaelic Ireland had emerged by the 1st century AD. The island was Christianised from the 5th century onward.” And so on. It reads like it was put together by committee, although this is sort of the point. |
|
|
| archiveurl = |
|
|
| archivedate = |
|
|
| accessdate = 2021-01-13 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Ireland naming discussions}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|
|counter = 16 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Ireland/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{todo}} |
|
|
{{calm talk|lightgreen}} |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Template:Archive box begins --> |
|
|
<div class="infobox" style="width: {{{box-width|250px}}}"> |
|
|
<div style="padding-top: 4px; text-align: center">{{{image|]}}}'''<br/>]''' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
---- |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# |
|
|
</div><!-- Template:Archive box ends --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== removal of "republic of" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is clearly misleading. Even a brief read of the opening lines of ] tells you that. Ireland is an island, not a state.] (]) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is not misleading in this case. The introduction to the article, the infobox, complete with the terms administration and flag of the country clearly differentiate the state from the island. I agree the term Republic of Ireland is needed in some cases but this is not one of them. Describing the political states in the infobox is the place where the official name should be put. Also what has the ] page got to do with the ] page? They are completely different pages! How is Ireland not a state? 'Ireland' is the name of the state, maybe it's just our political point of view disagrees with that.] (]) 20:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I want to wait for someone else to chip in before I respond. You have broken ].] (]) 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Wikipeire is completely correct if not a bit over eager in his/her edits. Ireland should be the term used as it is the official one. In an box where they are defining the different states it is extremely obvious that it is not the island. To suggest that someone could be confused is crazy.] (]) 20:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Unless somebody can proove, the Irish Republic covers the entire island? The 'Republic of Ireland' should be shown. ] (]) 20:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Seeing as I'm apolitical on this topic? I'll be requesting 'full page protection', if the edit warring continues. ] (]) 21:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The infobox for ] (the island) states the administration as ], even though the state is most commonly known as Taiwan or ]. Consistency seems in order here. I don't know what the harm would be of adding two words. But ofcourse, I'm neutral. ] (]) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That would be because the "Republic of China" is the official and legal name for the state. In exactly the same way, "Ireland" is the official and legal name of one of the two states on the island of Ireland. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I believe, '''Wikipeire''' has obliterated 3RR. ] (]) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an article about an Island. One of the states on that Island takes that name for itself. By enlarge, the rest of the world chooses to clarify this by naming the state "Republic of Ireland". Bertie Ahern recently described it as such in the Dail. It is appropriate to describe it as such here.] (]) 21:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The rest of the world? What about the UN<ref>http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf</ref>, the EU <ref>http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm</ref>, the US government <ref>http://www.usembassy.gov/</ref> and the Australian government? <ref>http://www.ireland.embassy.gov.au/</ref> Only the British and Fifa refer to it as the Rep. of Ireland. That is hardly the rest of the world considering all my sources which clearly declare Ireland. It should be reverted back. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::Indeed,apart fromthe United Kingdom (and by extension Crown Colonies, Dependencies etc.), the rest of the world uses Ireland. Which leads to the irony of the ] appointing Ambassadors to <u>Ireland</u> while her counter-part in the United Kingdom appoints them to the Republic. Perhaps they should get together for a chat about it some time. ;O) <font face="monospace" color="#004080">]·(])</font> 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good luck everyone. IMHO, the dispute on this topic? has become sorta petty. Therefore I depart, but again - I'm not convinced by the crowd that prefers 'just Ireland'. Why? The Irish Republic doesn't control the entire island. ] (]) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hi, GoodDay. The ] ceased to exist in 1922. As can be seen ], the ''state'' of Ireland is named just that - Ireland - in the current Constitution, and may be ''described as'' the ], following the eneacment of the ]. It is nothing to do with "control of the whole island" - in fact, the citizenship of the Republic of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to renounce the territorial claim over the whole island in a referendum which amended Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. You can read more about that in the second link above. Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Perhaps we should redirect ] to ], instead of the other way around, since it's clearly outrageous to name the country by it's full name. ] (]) 22:49, 2 March |
|
|
2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Do I detect sarcasm? Full name? The only official name is Ireland!!!! The Republic.... is not the name at all, its a description like, 'the Republic of France'. And anyway Ireland (state) would be the page title as country is a very vague term.] (]) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:My apologies everyone, if I caused confusion. When I say 'Irish Republic'? I mean it as short-hand for 'Republic of Ireland'. ] (]) 22:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
plenty of instances of republic of ireland. Including the UN and the EU. Like I said, the rest of the world] (]) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Jumpin' Junipers. Just when I was certain? Bastun whips out the Republic's Constitution. ''Now'', I can't decide. ] (]) 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Economic War == |
|
|
|
|
|
The section which deals with Ireland's economy contains a few inaccuracies. The Economic War with Britain wasn't started due to Fianna Fail's policy of protectionism, it was started because of Fianna Fail's refusal to continue paying land annuities to Britain, daing back to the land acts of the 18th and early 19th century. De Valera withheld the annuties, which totalled well over 3 million pounds a year, and the British responded by by placing tariffs on Irish exports of livestock. De Valera in turn imposed duties on British coal. ] (]) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rugby Union "Flag of Ireland" == |
|
|
Reading the this got my attention, though I've seen it a thousand times before. The Irish Rugby team is ''commonly'' represented by the tricolour symbol/flag, not the IRFU "Flag of Ireland". Should any and every all-Ireland institution involving flagcruft require the Wiki-use of the tricolour rather than dual flags or synthesised nonsense that is unknown outside a tiny group? I'm thinking here of the arguments that maintain Ireland is part of the "British" Isles regardless of any legal issues or any consideration of it's repugnance to most of the inhabitants of the island. As the tricolour is the symbol the most ''commonly'' represents Ireland (the Island/Country) should we not follow Wiki-policy in this regard? ] (]) 08:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is no common all-island flag/symbol. Each institution/organisation needs to be examined on its own and the appropriate symbol used for each case. For example, the tricolour is appropriate for the GAA, the flag of St. Patrick for the Church of Ireland, the four-provinces flag for the Irish Hockey Association, a green field and shamrock for the Irish Cricket Union, etc. This is current practice and verifiable. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Re-read what I said please. I said the tricolour was "the most commonly used" to represent Ireland the island; as "British Isles" is claimed to be the most common description of these islands. I did not say that there is any "common all-island flag/symbol". ] (]) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Eh? Geographical entities - Ireland, the island - ''don't'' have a flag, let alone a most commonly used one! ]<sup>]</sup> 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Info box color== |
|
|
|
|
|
''Hello Ireland''! Question: How did you get the info box to that very striking shade of green? I would like to propose a simular look for ] info box but with red. Any help you may offer would be greatly appreciated!] (]) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hi. All ] have green backgrounds. Just happens to be a little more "appropriate" here. (The Wales article uses ] which doesn't have configurable colours, so - if I take from your note that you want to apply a custom colour - you may have your work cut-out.) ] (]) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Humm... do you think it would be hard to have a spcific template created to allow color like this? Who would I ask to creat the template?] (]) 15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::If you're deadset on it, you could open a discussion at ] and propose configurable colours. However, I'm personally unsure about it. The Country infobox background is currently neutral to ensure concistency between pages. As well as to (possibly) avoid any partisan weirdness or association with colours. (Imagine for example a hypothetical conflict where one group of editors wanted to make (for example) the background for the Ukraine infobox a shade of ], while others want to make it Blue & Yellow. Or similar. Not every country has an "agreed national colour". It's probably best to keep it neutral/consistent.) Cheers. ] (]) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Thank you Guliolopez. I did visit the info box country and Wikid77 has been working with Wales to create a very professional looking template. Visit ] to see his results.]·<small>]</small> 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Another proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have numerous concerns about ] for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written ]. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of ], did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines ''per se'' that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term). |
|
|
|
|
|
My proposed guidelines are ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ireland, my mother & I say "thank you". == |
|
|
|
|
|
Eh, hi. My mother insisted on me getting out on the web and posting her, and mine, respect and thanks to the Republic of Ireland for voting such a powerful "no" on the EU-treaty on some open site where some Irish people are sure to see it, and wikipedia was the site that's open for the general public that I could come to think of... So: Thank you, Ireland. - Sweden. (On a sidenote, I would like to see a notion of this decissive vote in the article.) ] (]) 13:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi. A couple of quick things. (1) Talk pages are for discussing changes to articles, not really for general posts related to a topic. I appreciate that you're doing both, but please be aware of what talk pages are about. (2) With regard to the request to include the result of the vote in the relevant article. Firstly, this isn't the relevant article. This is the article about the island of Ireland. Not the state. Secondly, a note will probably be added in due course to the relevant article. But probably not until the vote count is complete. And - while it should reflect the realities of the vote result - POV terminology like "decisive" should be avoided. (Current indications are about 53% No to 47% Yes. Which is not really the "]" some commentators are making out. ] (]) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== LGBT culture section == |
|
|
|
|
|
A "LGBT culture" section was added recently. I have moved it under the general "culture" heading. However, frankly, I don't think there is any value to the text. The content is very very weak. It points out simply (and quite randomly) that there are "gay scenes in towns X, Y and Z". This seems pointless and arbitrary in the extreme. In particular given that, if it is notable that - for example - Sligo has a "gay scene" shouldn't that be mentioned in the Sligo article? Apologies for the flippancy, but the current text is more than a little silly, and akin to sticking a label on a map (near Ennis and Strabane) that says: "Here be gay people!". |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, (back to seriousness) the only value I can see for the inclusion of this text is by way of intro/lead-in to the main ] article. And readers could be directed to the fact that there is such an article by adding a simple link to the "see also" section. If someone feels that there is an innate value in this text (that I'm not seeing), then please let me know. Otherwise I'll probably convert to a "see also" link or similar. ] (]) 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Usage of British Isles in this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
I could understand this usage being a problem at ]; but not here. ] (]) 16:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:And why would that be? <strong>]</strong>] 16:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
'Cause the RoI is political; where's this article is geographical. ] (]) 16:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Exactly. This is an article about a geographical entity, one of the two main islands of the British Isles, and this should be noted. ] (]) 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is that so, then why has a ''geographical'' article got sections on |
|
|
* Political geography |
|
|
* All-island institutions |
|
|
* History |
|
|
* History since partition |
|
|
* Irish Independence: The Irish Free State, Éire, Ireland |
|
|
* Northern Ireland |
|
|
* Science |
|
|
This proves it is not just a ''geographical'' article.<strong>]</strong>] 16:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You appear to be under the impression that a geographical entity cannot have a history, or a culture, or political activities. ] (]) 16:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::No I am not I am pointing out your spurious argument that this is a ''geographical'' article when clearly it is not. But this one is ]. <strong>]</strong>] 16:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
The ''it's offensive'' argument, doesn't appeal to me (but that's just me). ] (]) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Since the term is used in Ireland by Irish government ministers, members of parliament, and all sorts of other institutions, it can't be ''all that'' offensive. ] (]) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::So have you resigned yourself to the fact that this is not a ''geographical'' article? <strong>]</strong>] 16:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have noticed your disruptive edits ], inserting British Isles POV, edit-warring and altercations back in April and May on this same topic with ]. I don't see the need to start it again on different pages like this one. There is really no necessity to add this additional British Isles description here, that belongs on the ] page, if all it will do is start an edit-war and offend people unnecessarily. TharkunColl, if you would cool your heels a bit you might perceive that just because you can add something does not always mean it is necessary to add it. ] (]) 16:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It's an article about a geographical enity, rather than a political entity. ] (]) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No matter what, why create trouble where there is none. Some things are best left well enough alone and TharkunColl, with your previous British Isles altercations, you are no doubt well aware of that. ] (]) 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Couple of points - its irrelevant what the Irish government think or that the term is offensive to some on the island. And Ireland is the second largest of the islands in the British Isles. But it doesn't need to be in the lead. Why not compromise - leave it out of the lede, but change "Shannon is the longest river in Ireland" to "...in the British Isles". ]<sup>]</sup> 20:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:''Shannon is the longest river in Ireland'' and as this is an article about Ireland not the BI it should stay the way it is. <strong>]</strong>] 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Everest is the tallest mountain in Nepal. Perfectly true, but it doesn't exactly do it justice. ] (]) 22:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
I prefer having ''British Isles'' in this article, as it's in the ] article. ] (]) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(outdent)Given that the consensus on Misplaced Pages is that the term "British Isles" is a valid geographical term, there is no reason why this article should form a different consensus. --] (]) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm not sure that argument is valid Bardcom. The very fact that there is a ] article is representative of the difficulty in gaining consensus on the use of the term. Both in this project and in the real world. |
|
|
:The fact that many people (and by corollary Misplaced Pages readers) link the term "British" with the UK lends to confusion. I appreciate the "it's a geographic term" argument - but many people will not recognise the distinction. And so, adding the term in this context lends more to confusion than to clarity. |
|
|
:If the entire point of this article is to give people more clarity or understanding on the concept of "the island of Ireland", then deliberately including a disputed/confusing/ambiguous/"offensive" term is counter productive. Per Ww2censor, I say just leave it be. Including the term is more trouble than it's worth. Both for the reader. And for the editor. ] (]) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
If we remove the BI term here? then it should be removed from ], as BI covers both islands. ] (]) 00:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: British Isles is an historical term which needed qualifying on that page (which is geographical) and we achieved consensus at some effort on that basis. However in the case of Ireland, historically the geographical and political link is there until the 1920s when we get the creation of Northern Ireland from six counties of Ulster. Given that Ireland has continuity as a subject (geographical or political) adding in references to the British Isles is unnecessary (other than an historical note of the conquest and incorporation then separation). ] edit and the reference to Everest and Nepal seem to miss the point. This is an article about Ireland, attempting to insert BI references looks very like a ''political'' move masquerading as a ''geographical'' edit. --] (]) 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agree with the points raised above by Snowded. <strong>]</strong>] 13:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::]s last sentence states the matter clearly in its basic essence and we should just leave it out. Inclusion leads not just to confusion for readers or editors with little knowledge of the subject but also to likely edit wars. Do we really need more of those here? I don't think so. ] (]) 23:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
I ''still'' think ] should be in this article; however, if it's gonna cause edit warring, then forget it. ] (]) 19:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: given that this discussion is not concluded I have reversed ] assumptive close pending agreement here. --] (]) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Spanish article== |
|
|
Please, could you put the link to the spanish article <nowiki>]</nowiki>? Thanks.--] (]) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What it means to be a geographical term == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, there appears to be different ideas over what constitutes a "Geographical" term versus terminology for political and cultural areas. |
|
|
|
|
|
A geographical term refers to a geographical area. Pretty simple. |
|
|
|
|
|
] correctly states above that a geographical area can acquire political and cultural activites. I agree - but these regions are not the same as geographical regions. Politics and culture easily bleed past geographical regions. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example. |
|
|
*'''Geographical term = Great Britain'''. |
|
|
*'''Cultural Term = British'''. But British "culture" and thinking, while originating in Great Britain, extends across the world (mainly due to colonization - think empire). |
|
|
*'''Political Term = United Kingdom''', which incorporates many cultures, including Irish culture from the North of Ireland. But there is not such thing as a UK culture. The political term naturally incorporates both land and sea. |
|
|
*'''Legal Term = British islands''' - effectively a legal jurisdiction which may be different than the cultural and geographical areas. |
|
|
|
|
|
Other examples are easier - think Vatican city. |
|
|
|
|
|
It gets more difficult when there is less "bleed"... |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Geographical term = Ireland''' |
|
|
*'''Cultural Term = Irish'''. But Irish "culture" and thinking also extends across the world (mainly due to migration). |
|
|
*'''Political Term(s) = Northern Ireland and Ireland (Republic)'''. |
|
|
*'''Legal Term = Ireland (in the English language) and Northern Ireland''' |
|
|
|
|
|
So what is this article? Is it intended to be a geographical article? Cos it isn't - as has been correctly pointed out, there are sections on Culture, Politics, etc. (It's a mixed up article, but being edited by 150 people can do that) |
|
|
|
|
|
An easy solution would be to separate the geographic section from the other sections.... |
|
|
|
|
|
--] (]) 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are some more examples: |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Geographical term = British Isles''' |
|
|
*'''Cultural term(s) = English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh''' (there is no such thing as "British" culture, though the 4 nations have much in common, notably language, and all 4 have also spread abroad because of the British Empire) |
|
|
*'''Political term(s) = UK, RoI (etc.)''' |
|
|
*'''Legal term(s) = Essentially the same as the political terms''' ("British Islands" is only used in very limited contexts, mainly concerned with passports) |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:You've oversimplified something very complex to the point where it isn't valid. For example, Cornish culture? Or what about the Isle of Man as a political area? Irish travellers? British Indians? Channel Islands culture and politics? But let's not distract this discussion into a British Isles discussion though, although I'm happy for it to be moved to the British Isles Talk page.. --] (]) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi guys. It is probably valuable (amongst the editing community) to ensure clarity around some of these terms - in case anyone is unclear on how/when/where to use them (and what pitfalls to avoid). However, unless we are going to add this extensive definition in line with every usage of (say) a geographical term (that could also be interpreted as a geopolitical term) then I'm still reticent about using those terms here. Specifically, as noted, while categorised as a "geographical label", the term "British Isles" has it's basis in a historical and political reality. This historical/political reality has since changed, but the term has not. IE: The term "British" has very strong political connotations in modern usage, and so applying a label (which includes this term) to an entity (like Ireland) which has mixed connections to that political entity, may confuse the reader. Or, to put it in a simpler way: Readers are very unlikely to readily recognise that the term "British Isles" is intended to be purely geographical, and doesn't infer political connections. In particular because it USED TO. And so (in the absence of an alternative term which doesn't suffer these problems) it's probably best left out. And therefore, my view remains that (because using the term is likely to DETRACT from the users understanding than to add to it), we should leave it out. ] (]) 13:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The term British Isles has existed since Ancient Greek times, so cannot possibly be derived from the politicial situation you describe. ] (]) 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::OK - apologies if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't stating that the term the "British Isles" had it's origins in the "United Kingdom or Great Britain and Ireland", and the various historical revisions of that political entity. I was simply pointing out that the term "British" TODAY is taken to relate to Great Britain or the UK - because (for a very long time) it has been a label describing nationality and sovereignty. EXCEPT in the term "the British Isles" - where it is ambiguous. Further, the whole point is that it's NOT the ancient Greeks who are going to be reading this. So, even if the ancient Greeks had a term which could be geographically applied to the entire island group (without political overtones), we don't have one today. Too many readers (without a 20 page explanation) will have difficulty recognising that the term "British" (in its use in that term) is not intended to imply political overtones. There is already too much difficulty in explaining the complexities of the relationship between Ireland (the island), Ireland (the state) and Northern Ireland (a UK constituent) without introducing ANOTHER confusing term. ] (]) 15:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't think people have a problem recognising that ] isn't British (any more), despite its name. Nor, that an island group can be named after its largest island, e.g. ]. Or, that ] refers, by definition, to something more than India. ] (]) 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::OK. Firstly, ] may not be part of "Britain" per sé, but then it is still a subset of the ] and was explicitly NAMED so by the then British head of state to EXPLICITLY reflect its "Britishness". (As opposed to Frenchness or American-ness). It is therefore a totally inappropriate example for your argument - supporting as it does the assertion that the term "British" has had colonial connotations for at least 150 years. Long since usurping its Greek origins in application to the region as a geographic term. |
|
|
:::::Secondly, with regard to the ] "precedent" cited, again I think you are picking a particularly bad example that only supports the argument against using BI here. Specifically, the term "Indian subcontinent" is highly questionable to people from Pakistan. And for that reason, you will note that it is not used on the ] article. For exactly the same reason that British Isles is questionable here. (And, in all honesty, if you tried to add it you would likely precipitate the same kind of editor conflict over there.) |
|
|
:::::The "Canary Islands" argument is mute because all constituents share the same sovereignty and therefore the same issues don't really apply. |
|
|
:::::(FYI - Just so I'm clear, I am not advocating that BI be avoided for reasons of "political correctness", or because it may be "offensive" (as others have argued), or because it's validity is challenged by people of a particular political bent. I am advocating that it be avoided PARTIALLY because of this, but MAINLY because it is ambiguous, confusing, potentially problematic under set theory, and WAY too open to mis-interpretation, and therefore generally detracts from the article. Rather than adding to it.) |
|
|
:::::I'm stepping out of this now. As noted, constantly arguing every minor point is not adding value. Longstanding consensus has been to avoid the term here because of all these issues. If someone can come up with an appropriate term which describes the shared geographical, historical and cultural overlaps of "these Islands", then I'd be OK with a discussion on a compromise. But categorising the island of Ireland under a super-set labelled as "British" is just not cricket. ] (]) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think precisely for the reasons you've outlined above, editing guidelines should be clear. I believe if there were clearer guidelines on the use of the term British Isles, there'd be less to argue about and less edit warring. And guidelines for British Isles may (or may not) be unique - they may not apply generically for all geographic terms. --] (]) 14:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: British Columbia is also the Political name of a province in canada so its not a valid example. I notice that while I was off line an edit war has happened. At the moment there is not agreement here to insert the British Isles and it looks to me more and more like a covert political agenda (or anti-agenda namely assuming political intent of those who do not want it). If an agreement can't be reached here then I am happy to put to to mediation if other editors are, and if anyone is prepared to face this issue yet again in yet another venue. From my perspective I argued strongly that the British Isles article should remain so named for historical accuracy, here I think it is confusing and there is not the same historical issue so I recommend we do not include it. Now I may be wrong but there are not enough editors who want it to justify the recent edits. --] (]) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::To BI, or not to BI. Personally I prefer BI being included; but, oh the headaches we shall endure to settle the matter. ] (]) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I agree.] (]) 00:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: We largely fought together on the BI Page itself! Here I think we should avoid it. --] (]) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=="erosion of natural and cultural heritage"== |
|
|
In the 'Economy' section i think there is an inaccuracy which needs to be corrected. It states that there has been an "erosion of natural and cultural heritage" due to "unbalanced economic growth". The document it references to support this does not attribute any loss of heritage to economic factors. Ireland has always in my opinion (like most countries) given too little attention/funding/legislation to protecting our cultural heritage. It was the same in the recession of the 80's, the boom of the last 15 years and it probably will always be - it cannot be attributed to economic factors, at least not without referencing something that states this. Any proven failings in Ireland's cultural/heritage support should be addressed in a "Culture" section or similar.] (]) 18:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:''Re: comment from Fin1213, above'': I notice that the statements re: erosion of heritage were removed by Sarah777, then reinstated recently by Mudpudlles1418 with improved citations, and removed again lately by Dppowell. I agree that the references on cultural heritage last given by Mudpuddles do not definitively show a link between recent economic growth and loss of heritage. These references clearly identify an '''accelerated''' rate of loss but the link to recent economic development is not clear. But, in the case of natural heritage, the link with economic development is very clear in the referenced web site, in which a Government press release states: "''The bad and poor ratings for habitats reflect the impacts of 35 years of agricultural intensification and a period of unrivalled economic growth in Ireland''". Clearly this references the recent Celtic Tiger era. The detail of the associated report ("The Status of EU Habitats and Species in Ireland") also clearly identifies increased infrastructure development and land use change as two of the main drivers of habitat destruction and subsequent biodiversity loss. While I agree with Fin123 that heritage loss is a chronic issue in Ireland and elsewhere, the accelerated loss of heritage is recognised as an important downside of rapid economic growth, in Ireland and in other countries (look to China for a typical example). Therefore I suggest that (1) a reference to the impact of Ireland's recent economic growth on cultural heritage should be reinstated somewhere but only if clearly supported by unambiguous references, and (2) the comments on natural heritage are reinstated as they were - the citation already given was valid and illustrates an important issue for the sustainability of Ireland's future economic growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
:On another note, the summary attached to Dppowell's recent edit, by my reading, suggests that Mudpuddles1418 made additions constituting new research ('synthesis') and vandalism (hence use of Twinkle), and unsubstantiated POV. Can I politely suggest that substantive edits (removing or including statements with important implications for a topic) and any suggestions of inappropriate editing should be discussed? Might ], ] and ] care to comment? ] (]) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not clear what you want a comment on? , my only recent edit, I think I was just removing POV language and obvious weasels rather than any referenced facts. ] (]) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "heritage" in this context - it is being constantly lost everywhere and all the time surely? What was created 30 years ago is now part of our heritage? And some of that is already being lost and replaced by tomorrow's heritage. ] (]) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Celtic Tiger == |
|
|
|
|
|
I find the discussion of the 'Celtic Tiger' phenomenon could do with some expansion. For example, the EU policy of pumping money from the richer states like France, Germany, Britain, etc. into the poorer states (like Ireland) was possibly the major cause of Ireland's sudden new wealth, which took the form more of fiscal than economic prosperity for the first decade or so. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
It's a common misconception that Ireland's economic growth was majorly due to EU funding. EU (or EEC at the time) funds were mainly spent on infrastructure which was badly needed at the time and of course was a factor. Ireland's unique policy of extremely low rates of corporate tax, tax-free areas and generous grants would have had more of an impact. Having good infrastructure is one thing but getting multi-national companies to invest in Ireland as opposed to other EU countries (of similar infrastructure levels) was surely the hardest and most relevant factor. This is proven by the fact that many countries have since copied Ireland's incentives packages to try and replicate the success. |
|
|
If anything Ireland's membership of the EU today is a blockage to further rapid economic growth as many of these incentives are now not allowed under EU anti-competition laws.] (]) 10:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd go a bit further! Despite having a ''very sub-standard infrastructure'' the Yanks invested here because of a number of reasons including (primarily) the taxation situation (plus cheap educated young English-speaking pop, etc etc). Also the level of EU aid as a % of GNP was never more than 3% at its peak and couldn't possibly explain the growth - also the other EU countries were, believe it or not, in the EU as well and the FDI didn't go to them! I'm sure the effect of getting between a quarter and a third of all American FDI in Europe for two decades dwarfed the EU transfers. I am, of course, open to contradiction from those closer to Berlin than to Boston. But it does seem to me that 30% of US foreign investment showered on 4 million people while the other 400 million had to do with the remainder, must be rather significant. ] (]) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::From ]: ''"The United States and the United Kingdom share the world's largest foreign direct investment partnership. American investment in the United Kingdom reached $255.4 billion in 2002, while British direct investment in the United States totaled $283.3 billion."'' So, it would seem that the British Isles gobbled up almost all of America's FDI in Europe, leaving the rest of the EU with almost nothing at all. A question though - if the RoI was getting all that American cash, why was it still getting EU handouts, paid for by taxpayers in countries such as the UK? ] (]) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Did you mean to use the term "British Isles" in this context? I'm confused. The quote talks about USA and UK. --] (]) 09:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Yes, because I was talking about the combined US FDI in both RoI and UK (see previous posts). ] (]) 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Payment for the some of the richest fishing rights in the world, which we gave to the EU? ]<sup>]</sup> 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The UK also gave up vast and economically crucial fishing rights - but we have always been a net ''contributor'' to the EEC/EU. But do we ever get any thanks for it? Not bloody likely! ] (]) 09:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Bring on the violins..sob! ] (]) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Info Box map == |
|
|
|
|
|
] (light grey) with ] (dark grey) to the east</small>]] |
|
|
How about using this instead of the current squashed/distorted example. ] (]) 19:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dear ] user from London - which "squashed/distorted example"? They all look fairly unsquashed to me. ] (]) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Dear ] editor from Ireland - the "squashed/distorted example" to which I refer is that currently in the Info Box, which simply shows Ireland as a green blob off the coast of continental Europe. The map has little definition in terms of the physical geography of the island itself, and while appreciating that it falls to personal taste, I felt that the one I proposed gives the reader, (self included), a much greater appreciation of the shape, relative size and position of what the article actually concerns. Regards. ] (]) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) (PS Ain't "from London" - Alba gu bràth! :) ) |
|
|
:::That map would be acceptable, only if Great Britain is the same colour as France. ] (]) 19:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I suspect France is a different shade to Great Britain as one is Continental Europe, while the other isn't. Perhaps the description beneath the map could cater for this by stating "Northwest of ] (light grey) with ] (dark grey) to the east". ] (]) 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The current shading, gives the impression that Ireland & Great Britain are one country. ] (]) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry -edit conflict ] (]) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I see ] that you've undone my change at Great Britain, therefore please forget I ever raised this issue. You have clearly demonstrated how easily some can become confused and think that ] is the same as ], and that each in turn are the same as ], despite the shading attributed to each geographical entity being completely different in the maps which I suggested be adopted both here and at ]. Best leave well alone so as not to confuse; I hereby withdraw my suggestion. ] (]) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fear not, no harm done. Also, feel free to place your proposed map at ]; who knows, others may view it differently. ] (]) 20:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Dear IP, having looked at the infobox I must say I find the blob a much better indication of the position of Ireland than your proposed box; how many semi-educated folk from Utah would recognise that shapeless bit of France as being continental Europe? And, remember, we are led to believe by our minders on Wiki that the average reader of en:Wiki is a borderline moron. ] (]) 09:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Athletics== |
|
|
"Irish athletics has seen some development in recent times, with Sonia O'Sullivan..." |
|
|
Irish athletics didn't start with Sonia O'Sullivan. What about Eamonn Coughlan? World champion, indoor mile world record holder for many years. --] (]) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== pronunciation == |
|
|
|
|
|
the 'ire' of Ireland should rhyme with tyre, but on the first line it says its pronounced 'ar' which is wrong. i'd change it myself but the page is locked <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Others would pronoune the "ire" to rhyme with "oire". Still others would make two sounds to rhyme with "higher" without the leading "h". --] (]) 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Image copyright problem with Image:Enyaclannad.jpg== |
|
|
The image ] is used in this article under a claim of ], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the ] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check |
|
|
|
|
|
:* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article. |
|
|
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page. |
|
|
<!-- Additional 10c list header goes here --> |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
An '''Ireland disambiguation task force''' (]) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland". --] (]) 04:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
==Flora== |
|
|
In the section on flora the article states that until mediaeval times, Ireland was heavily forested with various genera of trees, but is now covered with only 9% of forest. The article fails to explain the causes of de-forestation, and precisely when it began. The Mediaeval period roughly spanned a thousand years from the fall of Rome to the 15th century.--] (]) 07:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The cause? They were chopped down for use.] (]) 08:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::More than likely they were cleared for agricultural reasons. The article still does not specify which part of the middle ages this occured.--] (]) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Celtic nations template== |
|
|
Please stop edit warring over the ]. It was added recently without any discussion or agreement to add it or whether it was even appropriate to this article, so should be removed until agreement has been reached on its use or not. ] (]) 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ireland a Republic since 1937 or 1949? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought 1949, but I've seen 1937 being mentioned on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 00:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:1949. See the ]. However, the 26 counties acted as a republic since before then e.g. De Valera saying that there was no need to declare Ireland as a republic in 1943 because "we already are a republic". 1937 is the constitution, and a watershed date, but de jure 1949 is the actual date. If you go for 1937 then you might as well go for 1916 while you're at it. --] (]) 02:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Ireland/GA1}} |
|
|
==Northern Ireland has no flag== |
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the Union flag beside "United Kingdom" but Northern Ireland has no flag; and people from Northern Ireland have the constitutional right to be "Irish, British or both". There shouldn't be any flag beside 'Northern Ireland', located on the sidebar, beside 'constituent country', under United Kingdom. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:With all due respect, there is a flag of Northern Ireland with a red hand, crown and red cross on a white background. Of course, I agree that Northern Irish people have the right to decide whether they are Irish, British or both, but they do have their own flag to be proud of if, say, they were playing in a football match. ] (]) 21:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I assume you are talking about the ], this is not the flag of NI. The only official flag it has is the ]. <strong>]</strong>] 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Airlann == |
|
|
Why was '']'' removed from the introduction and infobox? Under the ] (approved by a majority of people on both sides of the border) Irish and Ulster Scots are granted 'parity of esteem'. Within an all-Ireland context neither should be given preference (as Irish is on this article). ] (]) 16:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I had put it back several times (based on previous - if not uncontroversial - consensus discussion), after a few other editors kept taking it out. After the last deletion in August, I just got fed up with the editwarring, and decided to focus on something more positive/valuable (instead of getting bogged down in yet another pseudo-political/linguistic debate). Possibly it should go back in the infobox - though I'm not sure where anymore. It had been included (without a specific explanatory label) beneath the English name in a HTML construct. Now that the infobox template has been updated however, the equivalent Irish term is placed under the "native name" label. With all due respect to 'parity of esteem', however, while its inclusion with an explanatory label seemed OK, I'm not sure Airlann would sit comfortably under the "native name" label. If that row was labelled "other names", or "names in other languages", I could see it. But "native name" is probably not entirely appropriate. And I'm not sure whereelse in the current infobox template it can sit. ] (]) 00:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I put it into the introduction, we'll see what happens. ] (]) 13:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This was previously removed and there was ], but why reinsert it if there will be any controversy. ] (]) 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't think it will cause controversy. I had read the above discussion, it didn't seem to have any resolution of note. ]] 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sport== |
|
|
We have a rugby league team playing, or to play, don't know which, in Australia at the minute, playing in a World Cup. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:If no-one else is going to write about it I will have to add my limited knowledge of the sport. ] (]) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm afraid I lack any sort of knowledge on Rugby League but I look forward to reading what Perry Groves puts up. ] (]) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==GA reassessment by community== |
|
|
] has now been put up for a community reassessment ]. Can you help with any of the issues mentioned? 6 & 7 have already been dealt with or don't exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Places of interest:''' I thought that using one of the popular travel guide, such as ] would be a good source for a reasonable listing of places of interest. I could work on this in the next few days if others agree. ] (]) 15:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi Ww2censor - I think that would be a good idea. I've made a stab at improving/adding references to a few sections (which was mentioned as a possible GA failure issue). I may also have a look at cleaning up the "further reading" section. Though I may simply delete. |
|
|
:The other key remaining "issue" relates to the length/uncited nature of the economy section. (Which as has been discussed before could do with review, summarisation and improved citations). If someone else can have a look at this, that would be great. |
|
|
:This would leave the "format and consistency of references" as the sole issue. Frankly this last one would take up a lot of valuable time, and - as has been noted - would not be a GA stumbling block on its own. It can therefore possibly be left for correction in a more organic fashion over time. (Or possibly to some future robotic to sort out). ] (]) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'll make a start on the "format and consistency of references", if you like. I've been doing a bit of that "tedious" work recently on other sites (yes, doing it properly is time-consuming!). I've been using the citation templates at ]--would that be OK? ]<sup>]</sup>23:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I looked through the article and tagged a few statements which need citations. I located and added one citation; time permitting, I may try to work on some others later this week. Cheers, ] (]) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thanks Hohenloh, I have deleted the Image Gallery and made a start on paragraphing the places of interest. Hope my work isn't too shabby.--] (]) 11:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Besides which there is already a Commons Ireland link at the bottom of the page so removal of the gallery is not a problem. ] (]) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I've started going through the references. I'll go through them around 10 at a time, remove the bad ones first, then replace them with good ones or fix what needs to be fixed. If I can't find a good one I'll tag where it's needed. OK? ]<sup>]</sup>04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Places of Interest==== |
|
|
In relation to tidying up the places of interest. ZincBelief, I think your initial steps are fine. However, to stop it turning bac into an exhaustive list again, I think some "criteria for inclusion" are needed. I think a good start is: UNESCO sites (and "proposed sites") per ZincBelief. (Brú na Bóinne, Causeway, Skelligs, Burren, etc) The national monuments of major significance (Glendalough, Clonmacnoise, Cashel). I'm not sure what criteria to apply, but possibly Kilkenny (as uniquely ancient medieval city), Ring of Kerry/Dingle/Killarney (as major "attractions"), and Cliffs of Moher, Bunratty and Blarney as (as "quintessentially" unique). And leave it at that. If someone can find a source that might rank a "top ten" in terms of visitor numbers, that would be great. Possibly a Bord Fáilte report exists. ] (]) 13:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK I just found a Bord Fáilte report from 2006 which lists the for that year. I'm going to have a look at it as the basis for finalising the "places of interest" section. |
|
|
:Unsurprisingly it lists Blarney, Bunratty, the Rock of Cashel, the Cliffs of Moher and Holy Cross Abbey, so I'll include these on that basis. |
|
|
:In Dublin it lists the Guinness Storehouse, Dublin Zoo, Book of Kells, St Patrick’s Cathedral, and several museums/etc. I'm not sure all these should be mentioned separately, so I'll see how they might be combined/summarised. |
|
|
:I'm a little surprised that Killarney/Dingle/Ring of Kerry aren't included - but then the nature of an "attraction" focused report is that a "general area" wouldn't have a man with a ticket booth counting passers by. Perhaps instead these could be covered under a "heavily touristed areas" sentence. That might include a summarised Dublin (as above), Kilkenny, Galway and the Aran islands. And I think that should be enough. ] (]) 13:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I started working on a list from ] which is rather long but with little if any apparent criteria. The new list with its criteria is much better though a little short. Perhaps we can find another list source to expand it a little. Well done and thanks folks incl. ]. ] (]) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In a few days time I'll have access to the Encyclopedia of Ireland, so presumably that would be useful for some missing citations?]<sup>]</sup>17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Newspapers == |
|
|
|
|
|
Newspapers are included under All-island institutions. Can this be improved? A newspaper is not an "institution" (I think). |
|
|
|
|
|
The paragraph begins: "A significant number of newspapers on the island are circulated in both jurisdictions." |
|
|
|
|
|
Is "jurisdiction" the correct term in this respect? |
|
|
?]<sup>]</sup>20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Ireland is not a "British" isle == |
|
Take it out, along with 50% of the economy sprawl--] (]) 00:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the term is a colonial and outdated one having been dug up from (by even then) archaic sources by one John Dee - an advisor to Elizabeth I of England, and who advocated for the colonisation of Ireland. Today it has no official standing and has no more relevance to Ireland than the term British East Africa has to modern day Kenya. And as such needs to be be kept in the dustbin of history where it belongs ] (]) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Yes, I tend to agree...?]<sup>]</sup>02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:It is a geographical term for a group of islands. Nothing colonial here. <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 12:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The now archaic term as detailed is colonial both in origin and use from the 1600s onwards. Denial doesn't change that regardless ] (]) 10:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Denial doesn't change the fact that it's absolutely a common geographical term, and elsewhere. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Best we keep using it. ] (]) 13:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::yes ] (]) 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Best according to whom exactly - the same small number of self serving editors? ] (]) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, . ]<sup>]</sup> 12:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Best we keep using it. ] (]) 06:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:British Isles is an internationally recognised geographical term. It is used in educational textbooks in Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand etc. |
|
|
:It's also in common use in Ireland, ignoring those whose lives revolve around politics |
|
|
:Celebrity Cruises.IE |
|
|
:https://www.celebritycruises.com/ie/destinations/european-cruises/british-isles-cruise |
|
|
:AirBnB Ireland |
|
|
:https://www.airbnb.ie/british-isles/stays/islands |
|
|
:I could go on but I can't be bothered. |
|
|
:It's common use in Ireland and ubiquitous use outside of Ireland. And, mind you, the 'revolt' against the term hasn't begun until Sinn Fein's recent electoral successes. ] (]) 22:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] citing a cruise website and Airbnb is a new low, please remove the term its offensive, to the history of Ireland. |
|
|
::A replacement term of IONA Ialands of the North Atlantic is much more inclusive. ] (]) 07:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Read the rest of the page, and the archives. It's used by a lot more than AirBnB and some cruise site. You'll find, e.g., the link to the search results returned solely from gov.ie websites. The term is offensive ''to you'', not to "the history of Ireland". We won, remember? IONA is mentioned ], but its use is tiny (possibly because it's offensive to Iceland, Greenland, and the Canaries, among others). ]<sup>]</sup> 08:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is deeply disheartening when editors fail to properly evaluate evidence and persist in framing the world through their own cultural biases. The perspectives on this issue are clear: For most British people, the term is claimed to be purely geographical because they seem to have been told repeatedly in school that that is the case even though "from the very beginning, the expression “British Isles” was a deliberate attempt to give geographic legitimacy to the political ambitions of an expansionist English state"<ref>https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/opinion-to-say-britishness-is-authentic-while-denying-irishness-is-quaffing-ones-own-kool-aid-too-deeply-3276952-Mar2017/</ref>. Among Irish people, the term is generally seen as wholly unacceptable. For people who understand the word "British", the term is clearly political. The Irish government’s official stance is that the term is neither used nor considered appropriate. Joint documents issued by the British and Irish governments affirm that the term is not acceptable, favoring alternatives such as “these islands.” The British government itself acknowledges that the term holds no official status. The evidence is clear; the term is contentious and disputed. Despite this, editors based in Britain continue to champion its use on Misplaced Pages, disregarding the controversy and the availability of more neutral alternatives. Why? Search for any reputable Irish publication, e.g. the Irish Times or the Journal and "British Isles" and every result is about how it's not appropriate: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-british-isles-1.26569 https://www.thejournal.ie/is-ireland-british-isles-northern-ireland-europe-islands-1140112-Oct2013/ https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2005-09-28/495/ https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/12/wild-isles-quibbles-about-our-british-isles-melt-away-in-the-face-of-david-attenboroughs-passion/ https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/opinion-to-say-britishness-is-authentic-while-denying-irishness-is-quaffing-ones-own-kool-aid-too-deeply-3276952-Mar2017/ ] (]) 17:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Considering this is a page ablut Ireland could we not use something not controversial? The Irish government do not recognise the term British Isles (aka the government that makes up like 75% of the area), and on the good Friday agreement it was also not used and "these islands" wete used instead. How about wr just use Britain and Ireland? Its not controversial. ] (]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Move discussion in progress == |
|
== Soccer player == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Republic of Ireland#Requested move 18 August 2024 crosspost --> —] 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Can that paragraph about the NI soccer player playing for Ireland be removed from "All-island institutions"? IMHO it's uncited and unencyclopedic and its removal would simplify an already contentious section.]<sup>]</sup>23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would support that, especially as the ROI team is not an all-Ireland institution! (Nor is it political). ] (]) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
== "Island" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is very clearly about the Irish nation as a whole, not merely the largest island of Ireland (the Irish mainland), so the lede's current wording of "Ireland is an island" is obviously incorrect. I fixed this with , but {{ping|Canterbury Tail}} reverted the edit, claiming that the fix was "confusing" with no explanation as to how, and suggested discussing it on the talk page. |
|
It was suggested that this article should be moved to ] or ]. Please comment at ]. Thanks, ] ] 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I have to ask- if not "nation", then what other term should be used to describe the whole nation of Ireland, consisting of all 32 Irish counties (including areas both on the Irish mainland and offshore islands)? ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 18:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''Update''' - further discussion on the above (whether "Ireland" should be a disambig page or not) is now ongoing at a different location, at ] Regards, ] (]) 19:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The article is about the island and what is on it (plus subsidiary islands as is normal with any large island). It's not about the people, they're secondary. This isn't about the counties, it's about the landmass and all that exists and has existed on it. If it was about a nation we'd need to excise half the article as the concept of Irish as a nation is relatively new in historical terms and the geography, flora and fauna of it don't subscribe to this nationhood. ] ] 18:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
==New Ireland project== |
|
|
|
::I think this is missing the point- this article is about all of Ireland, not just about the Irish mainland, so beginning the article with "Ireland is an island" is factually incorrect. It would be correct to say "Ireland has hundreds of islands"; it would not be correct to say "Ireland is an island consisting of hundreds of islands". |
|
Hi all,<br> |
|
|
|
::By contrast, the ] article makes it clear in the lede that ''Great Britain is an island'' but also that ''the term "Great Britain" can also refer to the political territory of England, Scotland and Wales, which includes their offshore islands.'' ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've started a new ] which I hope will bridge a gap I feel exists between the two Wiki community's with an interest in Ireland related matters. The project has just started but I hope it will allow us to work together at first on uncontroversial articles such as ] and if successful I hope will allow for a more constructive and friendly approach to the controversial issues ] (]) 20:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::And this article also makes it clear that is also refers to the political territory of Ireland (Republic of) and Northern Ireland. But the article is pretty clear it's about the island and that there are other surround islands. It's perfectly normal in the world to discuss small islands surrounding larger ones in the same context, or those in rivers, lakes etc. Are we disputing that Ireland is an island now? ] ] 19:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Sport is uncontroversial? Ha! Just kidding. It's a great idea. --] (]) 23:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::That looks interesting. Any chance of getting George Mitchell to lend a hand? ]<sup>]</sup>06:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
::::And mention of other islands can be removed if we feel necessary. ] ] 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Boxing== |
|
== Languages == |
|
I think it should now be included in the sport section about the fantastic performance in the recent Olympic Games in Beijing by Irish boxers. Our silver medal and two bronze medals should defnitely be mentioned and I will do so if people are alright with that. ] (]) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BSL is also used in NI ] (]) 21:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Article layout== |
|
|
Anyone else thing the big plain green map under the infobox is ugly? (And a bit repetitive and too big). Also the pictures of Boyle and Joyce are way too big. The layout needs a bit of attention here; compare it with the ] article. ] (]) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I took out the "nickname" nonsense but I have left "Ireland" floating free above the infobox - anyone know how to fix that (without reintroducing the nickname and "native" name? ] (]) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Population == |
|
::Hi Sarah. To your points. |
|
|
::# Location map in Infobox - I think this looks fine. It is consistent with the infoboxes of other islands. |
|
|
::# Names in Infobox - Can you explain precisely why you feel that "Éire" as the native translation for "Ireland" is nonsense? What's nonsense about it? Surely it's factual and verifiable? When I saw you remove this earlier I was more than a little perplexed. Compare to island infobox for ] (an island comprising the Dominican Republic and Haiti) this has a native translation for the island's name. La Española. Quite appropriately in my view. What precisely is the difference here? |
|
|
::# Title of the Infobox - "Can anyone fix the title floating free above the box"? Again, what is there to fix exactly? It is consistent with the island infobox template in use all over the place. |
|
|
::# Duplication in infobox - Again, this is perfectly consistent with island infoboxes elsewhere. Compare ] or ]. What duplication is there? I can't see any. |
|
|
::# Boyle and Joyce pics are too big - I have applied the "upright" standard to those two thumbs. That should address. |
|
|
::# Compare to the United States article - What specifically are you comparing? The infobox is obviously different. As one deals with a nation and the other an island. So, I can only assume you mean the body text. Is there any "best practices" from the US article you think should be applied here? |
|
|
::Finally, I am actually tempted to reinstate the native and nicknames. As I don't see how "nonsense" applies - certainly when applied to a literal native translation that pre-dates the English term, and a commonly held "romantic sobriquet" that has been in use for several hundred years. (From the mid 1700s at least). ] (]) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with Gulio. Infobox looks fine now, IMHO--could we leave it at that? Smaller pics look better too. Maybe the green map might be a little smaller? Could someone finish off the remaining citations that need to be done? There's not many left. Still needs a little pruning--emigration and economy come to mind. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of 2024, population of island would be just over 7.3 million with 5.38m in the Republic and 1.92m in the north. ] (]) 23:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Snowded's last edit - removal of Army pipelink == |
|
|
What other army would it be? It's unnecessary to specify "British Army". ] (]) 11:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:How do you know that? ] (]) 12:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Proposed move to Ireland (island) == |
|
|
|
::official CSO estimates. https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2024/keyfindings/ ] (]) 16:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's just an estimate, keep to actual official census figures. ] ] 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Why? It’s an official estimate which are included in many other country wikipedia articles. I also don’t remember talking to you ] (]) 17:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Um anyone can post on a talk page. You posted on a public talk page of a public article. ] ] 17:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2024 == |
|
Per Misplaced Pages naming policy and the ], as well as following extensive discussion at ] and ], it is proposed that ] be moved to ]. This will enable these pages to accord with Misplaced Pages-wide policy as well as the opinion of most of the task force editors. In order to make way for this move, it is proposed that this article is moved to ]. ] (]) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Ireland|answered=yee}} |
|
* '''Support''' ] (]) 11:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Please do not use “the British isles”. It is not a geographical term. It is an outdated geopolitical term. The Irish government has explicitly stated that it should no longer be used to refer to Britain and Ireland as a whole in any capacity. ] (]) 08:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
* '''Strongly Support'' --] <small>]</small> 11:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{not done}}. You didn't specify an exact replacement, this had been discussed above (]) and wider changes could be implemented also which is out of scope of a simple edit request (eg are you suggesting a rename of the article ], ] etc?). There is a note in the article about the use of "British Isles" and a link to ].--] (]) 12:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
* {{tl|Recentism}} is a fault for which we have a tag already made. No. ] ] 11:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*: I wouldn't call 1921 recent, but hey... ] (]) 12:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*::If that is what you believe, then that supports Angus McLellan's accusation of recentism. ] (]) 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Strongly oppose''' - there is a disambiguation task force looking at the whole area of how to disambiguate Ireland, which is highly controversial and complicated. No moves such as this should take place until the task force has completed. It is against the ethos and spirit of the task force to hive off particular moves and deal with them separately. This arbitrary action by Waggers is out of order and reduces the likelihood of achieving compromise agreement on the whole issue. ] (]) 12:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Discussion has been extensive and prolonged, Waggers is not taking arbitrary action, Mooretwin is attempting a filibuster to preserve a minority position. --] <small>]</small> 12:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::He is taking arbitrary action. He has pushed for this over the last few days, and abitrarily decided himself to take this course of action. This is not a filibuster - I have regularly argued for compromise, but it seems that those determined to push a particular agenda are not interested in compromise, confident that they can force measures through by majority votes. This behaviour leaves a bad taste in the mouth. ] (]) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Moortwin, there is no evidence of you attempting to compromise in any meaningful sense of the word and you have this time (and historically) done your level best to prevent discussion moving forward so that you can retain the status quo. Your comments abound with accusations and conspiracy theories - enough, please. --] <small>]</small> 13:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::There's plenty of evidence. I have proposed a compromise on the name of the article in return for an agreement about usage within texts. I also proposed bringing Derry/Londonderry into it. Again, I make an appeal that you and others do not engage in misrepresentation of those with whom you disagree. ] (]) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I think you just made my point for me, bringing a shopping basket of controversial requests is exactly not what a compromise is about, its a way of protracting the issue and obscuring it.--] <small>]</small> 13:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The purpose of the task force was to deal with the issue in the round, so suggesting that this is actually what should happen is not "bringing a shopping basket of controversial requests". It is better to deal with controversial requests in the round, rather than divide them up and force them through one by one, as appears to be happening now. ] (]) 13:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' This RM has been made now, and it was unquestionably the most fully and cross-supported ''singlular'' approach (even if it does leave the name of the Irish state for another day). One of the best arguments for it is ''''''. In no way will the outcome of this effect the taskforce - that will remain solid. A number of people felt confident about going this way (including admin) - and they are entitled to do it. It's a question of people's time as much as anything - people want to see something positive happen here. --] (]) 12:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''comment''' Whatever may happen to the ROI state article, this current forked-info, state/island, 3-choice-link-inducing, eroniously-linked-to ambiguity-causing 'Ireland' article is supported by few people indeed. --] (]) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have no confidence in the task force now. It seems clear that a group of editors with a particular agenda is determined to force its will by pushing majority votes on each individual issue. ] (]) 12:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don't think it's fair to blame the taskforce - it was only ever a place for discussion and straw polls. If people feel strong enough to move on it, then no one can stop them from doing it. --] (]) 12:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. ] (]) 12:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''', won't work and needs more time, and the task force hasn't deliberated as yet. ] (]) 12:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support''' ] (]) 13:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Support''' ] ] 13:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' An entirely unnecessary move. ] (]) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Care to give a reason why it's unnecessary to abide by the ]? ] (]) 14:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose (strongly)''' - what is this "Misplaced Pages-wide policy" - bogus? This is a nonsense move request. It should be withdrawn immediately. ] (]) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*:The answer to your question is in the links above. In a nutshell, there are (at least) two entities called Ireland, therefore ] should be a disambiguation page per ]. ] (]) 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh yeah the ] and ] nonsense that would lead to nonsense like ] and ]. That is daft. No thanks. ] (]) 14:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Of course it wouldn't. Have you not read '''''', or do you not understand the nature of pipelinks. This bogus argument devalues your otherwise legitimate opinion. ] ] 15:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So we are going to "keep" ], rather than ]. Because moving the ] article to ] is the ultimate objective? Isn't it? ] (]) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::This proposed move is purely about the ] article, to make way for ] to move here. There are no hidden motives. ] (]) 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So its ''death by a thousand cuts''? Oh ''bugger''. ] (]) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Excuse me? This ignorant paranoia has been devastating for Wikpedia - ']' being in such a mess is the clear the problem for most Misplaced Pages-concerned people - but we are not allowed to address it because of petty squabbling by the likes of you, over ROI. In the meantime (and over the years) the Irish articles flounder in a confused mess themselves. Some of them have cobwebs from not being touched. But do you care about that at all? In any case, even if ROI was changed, I've explained to you before that ] won't need to happen - ] would be absolutely fine! At the moment we have countless ']' format articles anyway (some including Northern Ireland, some not)! It is all a mess. If you had the courage to support this disam-page Move, the chances are that ROI would never be changed. But I wonder if keeping ROI ''really is'' your wish - or if you are really fighting for a unified Ireland, via keeping hold of this mish-mash 'single-state-appearing' Ireland article that we currently have? -] (]) 16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' - The article about ] is in the right place. ]] 14:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
the term is a colonial and outdated one having been dug up from (by even then) archaic sources by one John Dee - an advisor to Elizabeth I of England, and who advocated for the colonisation of Ireland. Today it has no official standing and has no more relevance to Ireland than the term British East Africa has to modern day Kenya. And as such needs to be be kept in the dustbin of history where it belongs 109.78.105.250 (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is very clearly about the Irish nation as a whole, not merely the largest island of Ireland (the Irish mainland), so the lede's current wording of "Ireland is an island" is obviously incorrect. I fixed this with this edit, but @Canterbury Tail: reverted the edit, claiming that the fix was "confusing" with no explanation as to how, and suggested discussing it on the talk page.
So I have to ask- if not "nation", then what other term should be used to describe the whole nation of Ireland, consisting of all 32 Irish counties (including areas both on the Irish mainland and offshore islands)? Chessrat 18:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Please do not use “the British isles”. It is not a geographical term. It is an outdated geopolitical term. The Irish government has explicitly stated that it should no longer be used to refer to Britain and Ireland as a whole in any capacity. 2001:BB6:287C:8E00:59B9:484D:25A7:6015 (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done. You didn't specify an exact replacement, this had been discussed above (#Ireland is not a "British" isle) and wider changes could be implemented also which is out of scope of a simple edit request (eg are you suggesting a rename of the article British Isles, Category:British Isles etc?). There is a note in the article about the use of "British Isles" and a link to Names of the British Isles.--Commander Keane (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)