Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:55, 3 December 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 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

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

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.

Ireland/ROI section

The #Headings section above shows that the section is far from clear to the new reader. It could do with a re-write for clarity. In particular,

1. "When referring to places and settlements in the Republic of Ireland...use ]" followed by "In other places prefer use of ]" is strange. Why not just say "In all cases use ], except..."?
2. "Prefer use of ]" is itself gramatically incorrect and ambiguous. It should be either "] is preferred" or "Use ]."
3. "...or where confusion may arise" is far too vague. How might confusion arise, other than where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context? A specific example should be given, or it should be removed. Scolaire (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, considering this comment on Talk:Odeon cinemas, should the manual not simply say to use "Ireland", and that all links, piped or not, should be removed per WP:OVERLINK? --Scolaire (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Catholic means Roman Catholic

Is there a consensus that Catholic means Roman Catholic for most Irish people in ordinary everyday speech, and is synonymous with Roman Catholicism in Ireland, even if it is not the exact encyclopaedic definition? Red Hurley (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, most Irish people in ordinary everyday speech say "Catholic", not "Roman Catholic". FTR, the main article is Catholic Church, not "Roman Catholic Church", and the related WikiProject is WP:WikiProject Catholicism, not "WikiProject Roman Catholicism". I would like to see "Roman Catholic" replaced by "Catholic" in all cases where there is no ambiguity, such as might arise where Anglo-Catholicism was referred to in the same context. And I would like to see that specifically incorporated into IMOS (the use of "Roman Catholic" may be more common outside Ireland, I don't know). Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• No Check out any article in any Roman Catholic category. As a sample, take Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland, or Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland or Category:Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland or Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland or Category:Roman Catholic schools in Ireland or Category:Roman Catholic cemeteries in Northern Ireland. Unless you want to undertake a re-naming of literally hundreds or articles, this attempt should be abandoned. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• No. It may be used as convenient shorthand, but that's all it is. Church of Ireland members would certainly disagree that C means RC... Bastun 19:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Catholic" may mean "Roman Catholic" to most Irish people in everyday speech but, for an encyclopaedia, I think "Roman Catholic" is better on some (most?) occasions. As Bastun point out, Roman Catholicism is not the only Catholic church in Christianity. See Catholicism and Catholic Church (disambiguation). --RA (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• I think we should look at reputable Irish journalism and history writing - as appropriate for the period under discussion - in relation to this. I haven't done so myself, but I would be very surprised if "Roman Catholic" was widespread in such material. Certainly the Church of Ireland regards itself as a Catholic church, but in talking about Irish society and politics, use of the terms "Catholic and Protestant" or "Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter" is pretty clear and common. The Dissenters regarded themselves as Protestants just as the Protestants regarded themselves as Catholic, of course... --ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• The terms are pretty interchangeable surely in most general use. WP is not an ecclesiastical directory and I don't think in most cases, outside of more technical references, we need to worry too much one way or the other - Catholic is fine and has a clear meaning in the context, and there's no need to add "Roman" (just as there's no need to remove it when it's there; in fact, if we wanted to get bogged down in semantics, which I don't think we do, there's an arguable case that there are historically and potentially derogatory overtones in stressing the "Roman"). On a side point, I was slightly surprised to find that the simple term "Catholic" directs to this "history" page, which reads like a lengthy dictionary/disambiguation entry. I'd have thought the primary topic for "Catholic", and what most people would be looking for, would be the main page about Roman Catholicism. That might also affect any links currently in place of course. N-HH talk/edits 10:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that in the Irish context there are - or can be - slightly derogatory connotations to saying "Roman Catholic" as opposed to just Catholic. I'm also inclined to agree that this is something where campaigns of mass conversion would not be helpful, in either direction, however many souls they may save from perdition. --ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Catholic is the commonly used term as far as I am aware for Roman Catholics however personally I'd prefer we used Roman Catholic as it is more precise. Mabuska 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. "Roman Catholic" grates when the vast majority of Irish non-Protestant Christians self-identify as "Catholic". In Northern Ireland, the "Roman" prefix is routinely added only by those who are outside that church. The usage can be more than slightly derogatory as it cam imply that the church and its adherents serve a foreign power. Some - the late Tomás Ó Fiaich among them - have preferred the term "Irish Catholic". I would suggest "Catholic" is perfectly adequate, except in the very few instances when it is necessary to distinguish the main church or community from some other group of (Ukrainian, Anglo-, whatever) Catholics. Brocach (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all, looks fairly even so far and I have no personal preference. RC is a tad more encyclopedic.Red Hurley (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move:Derry to Londonderry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles → Londonderry – Current convention is based on a compromise that the city be called Derry and the County be called Londonderry. Everyone knows that there has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland and that before being named County Londonderry it was a mash up of County Coleraine and part of County Tyrone. There is no dispute that the county is called Londonderry. So how is this a compromise? Londonderry is also the official name of the city following the siege of Derry when Derry, at the time had been all but destroyed. Londonderry is also a city in Northern Ireland where the majority population are of unionist persuasion and hence would call the city Londonderry. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and hence should use the official name, not a name, born from a skewed compromise to keep a cell of users happy.46.7.113.111 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

While I'd be happy to support such a move, you've placed that template and request in the wrong place. You have to place it on the page you want moved, not here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Derry GAA

has been notified of this discussion Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Can a new rule be inserted in IMOS that says "When the GAA county of Derry GAA (or more formally the "Derry GAA County Board" is wikilinked, that it should not be shorteden or pipelinked to "Derry" or "County Derry" or Derry. The full title of Derry GAA should be used." Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As in "The GAA county of Derry GAA (or more formally the "Derry GAA County Board") met the GAA county of Donegal GAA (or more formally the "Donegal GAA County Board") in the quarter-finals of the 2012 Senior Football Championship"? I don't think so! Scolaire (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm. On mature reflection, perhaps the rule could be confined to the use of the unpiped name at the first time of mention and the shortened name thereafter. For example "The 2012 All-Ireland Football Final, the 125th event of its kind and the culmination of the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship 2012, was played at Croke Park, Dublin on 23 September 2012. Donegal GAA and Mayo GAA, widely considered "one of the most novel final pairings of all time"....". Followed by "Donegal ultimately emerging victorious as Mayo were yet again undone by "the curse"". Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's mature reflection, I shudder to think what a knee-jerk reaction would look like ;-) Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a related thread here. --RA (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Laurel Lodges, in future if you make a request for consideration could it be followed with 'because' please, and then give a reason? Even if sticking in GAA was a good idea I can't see why we should bother sticking it into IMOS never mind that I can't see any good reason for sticking GAA in everywhere in the first place. Dmcq (talk)

Sorry. I thought that the reason was obvious. The Derry/Londonderry debate has been clogging this project for years now. But if you'd like me to formally state it, that's fine. The rationale for this proposal is that it might prevent future outbursts of the Derry/Londonderry hostilities erupting from the GAA theatre of action. There have been several attempts in recent months to ignite frsh hostiliites under the pretense that the GG county board should be an excetion to the Dery/Londondery rule and so should be allowed to call itself "Derry" alone along with the "County" prefix. These attempts have been rejected at WP:Cfd - see County Derry of October 19th. Nevertheless it has not deterred people from using the close alignment between the area of (former)administrative counties and areas under the administration of GAA county boards to create lots of "County Derry" articles and categories. The editor Brownhairedgirl, in her comments on that case said, "1.That Derry GAA does not use the term "County Londonderry" in its organisational structure" and "2.The County Board of Derry GAA includes clubs from outside County Londonderry. So addition to the geographical categorisation, we also need a category to reflect the organisation of the sport. Referring to "Derry GAA" rather than to "County Derry" makes it clear that the category's scope is not that of the geographical county." Is it not reasonable to suppose that that rationale was in the mind of the closing editor on that case? So this proposal takes that decision on board and attempts to make it clear that what is in scope in the wikilink is a GAA entity, like Derry GAA or New York GAA or indeed any of the GAA "counties", not the administrative county. The airbrushing out of this important distinction by the immediate and incessant use of the pipelink would be lessened if this rule was adopted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

How often does "County Derry" appear in Misplaced Pages articles? Because I did a quick search and, apart from the County Londonderry article and the County Derry dab page, I can't find it anywhere! Those categories that you link to were deleted. We don't need a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The pipelinking argument has nothing to do with geographical counties. GAA county boards are abbreviated the same as other sports bodies are. Just as the 2012 FA Cup final was between ] and ], the Ulster Senior Football quarter-final was between ] and ]. Adding layers of instruction creep to IMOS is not going to "prevent future outbursts of the Derry/Londonderry hostilities" erupting from the GAA or any other "theatre of action". Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, I'm not convinced that we need to make a specific exception in IMOS for "the GAA county of Derry". I suggest that it just be added to the list of examples in the second paragraph, thus:

Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. 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, and Derry GAA (which will usually be abbreviated to ]).

Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. RashersTierney (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't need an IMOS if all problems were solved for all time. Fact is, new questions arise and old wounds continue to fester. You may be sure that some day somebody will open a page or cat called "Blue eyed hurlers in Derry". A large part of IMOS is that it is preventative medicine. The core question is "would the adoption of the proposed rule result in fewer disputes"? IMHO, the answer is yes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Extra verbiage in policies and guidelines is not cost free. In fact they carry a high cost and need to be justified. The relevant policy here is WP:POLICY#Content: "be as concise as possible—but no more concise" and "emphasize the spirit of the rule", We don't need loads of special rules and they would just bog people down talking about rules rather than doing something useful. As it says there "Expect editors to use common sense". And can I also point out WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. And we also don't need rules devoted to things that might possibly happen sometime in the future, that's just a waste of time and effort and imposes a burden on everyone reading policies and guidelines and sets off more pointless arguments. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Re "we also don't need rules devoted to things that might possibly happen sometime in the future". I think that when you take some time to reflect you will realise that this is just not true. All rules are future oriented. Nobody can be indicted for infringing a law that was not passed at the time of the supposed infringement. All constitutions are about "what if.." situations and putting in place appropriate checks and balances for forseeable eventualities. So a test of "forseeableness" is reasonable in setting rules. In the present case, we must ask ourselves if it is forseeable that ultra-republicans and irredentists will attempt to introduce "County Derry" type articles and categories in the future. As anybody who has witnessed the interminable Derry/Londonderry disputes on wiki over the years can testify, the answer to this test mustbe "yes". Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the bit in WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY about that Misplaced Pages is not a moot court? The policies and guidelines are not laws and we do not need to provide for the future in the way you say. Dmcq (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Plus, a manual of style is not about a few people making rules for the many. It sets down what the consensus is on certain matters. Since it must be blindingly obvious by now that your "rule" doesn't have any consensus at all, it cannot go in the MOS. Simple as that. Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The contributions above border on bullying. In the first place they seem to ignore "good faith". Secondly, if proposals can only be made when things are blindingly obvious, then there would be no need for talk pages. You could just work by edict. But that's not the wiki way. Thirdly, if "a manual of style is not about a few people making rules for the many", then what is it? Fourthly it's not my "rule", it's my humble proposal for a change to an existing rule that deserves a fair hearing and not snide comments. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:POLICY explains about policies and guidelines and Scolaire summarized the situation well. They are supposed to describe the consensus about how to do things. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I know what he wrote and I know what was intended. Bullies always act with the best of intentions. To return to the substantive issue. I have yet to receive a reasoned response to "The core question is "would the adoption of the proposed rule result in fewer disputes"? Neither have I received a reasoned response to the question if it "is forseeable that ultra-republicans and irredentists will attempt to introduce "County Derry" type articles and categories in the future.". If I have missed some central point, apart from the throwing about of wiki policies klike snuff at a wake, please enlighten me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)