| Revision as of 22:05, 2 June 2009 editTóraí (talk | contribs)Administrators18,520 edits →Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles: so b then?← Previous edit |
Revision as of 22:15, 2 June 2009 edit undoSarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators51,820 edits →Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles: archivingNext edit → |
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
{{archives}} |
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Archiving more misplaced discussion== |
|
==Discussion of the name of this (and other) articles== |
|
|
⚫ |
It doesn't go here. --] (]) 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. That structure does not involve discussing it on the individual talk pages. If you want to discuss the subject further, follow the link above. I have archived all current discussion in an attempt to get people to comply with the ArbCom's directives. If you don't like it, take it to the ]. I'm declaring this an administrative action to comply with an ArbCom directive, which is not reversible, until consensus there determines I'm mistaken.--] (]) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Concur. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You "have archived all current discussion in an attempt" to prevent discussion. That Sandstein you concur is not surprising, consulting you would be consulting a butcher about the keeping of ]. SarekOfVulcan you have been ], were unable to support your opinions of defend your position, so you closed it down. You are both setting out to mislead our readers, and preventing them from informing themselves. The Arbitration Committee has put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed article namely ]. The arguement is based on nothing more than editors opinion, with not one reference to support their POV. The article text you removed illustrated this all to well. SarekOfVulcan I never violated any ArbCom's directives, you mate Sandstein said I did "what amounted to" a violation, and closed down the discussion where I set about defending myself. Why should I take it to ], and get more of the same. A joke! Only thing is, it's the readers who it's on. If you need me to provide Diff's you just have to ask. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, I archived the discussion to prevent discussion IN THE WRONG PLACE. Subtle difference, but important.--] (]) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Readers who read this article and question the misleading information, will not find any discussion here. When editors who have been involved in the discussion can still about this being about the State. You actions breed ignorance, with readers going away thinking RoI is the name of the State. You were activly involved in the discussion, and you closed it. At not time could you support your arguement. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::This article '''is''' about the state and always has been. Therefore it's not "nonsense" to say so. On the contrary, it's nonsense to claim that it is not. ] (]) 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is a really big box at the top of the page that talks about "Ireland article names". If you feel editors might miss that, perhaps we could add something below it explaining the situation? Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 13:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: They can only go away thinking this is the name of the state if they dont read the first paragraph of the introduction which clearly says.. "The name of the state is Ireland, while the description the Republic of Ireland is sometimes used when there is a need to differentiate the state from the island". Thats if they miss the banner which i pointed out in the dif you mentioned. I agree the box at the top of the Ireland talk pages needs changing, the statement process is over people just need to be told to go there to see about the naming dispute and not to seek change here. ] (]) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
::I pinged the Wikiproject, and the box has been updated.--] (]) 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Arbitration Committee has '''not''' put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Please provide a link? There is on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The short bit - If the RoI article is not to be moved to "Ireland", I agree with the compromise proposal that: |
|
|
*the RoI article to "Ireland (state)"; |
|
|
*the island article to "Ireland (island)"; and |
|
|
*"Ireland" be a DAB. |
|
|
|
|
|
For those who wish to read on: |
|
|
|
|
|
There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples: |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include ]; |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include ]; |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include ]; |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include the ]; |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as ]; |
|
|
....The names of all of the above states have Misplaced Pages articles that follow their usual names.Why is ] being singled out? Regards. ] (]) 20:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Interesting question. You should raise it as ]. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I think you know the answer to that question RedKing, they don't have a vocal group of pro British editors enforcing a lie with the backing of admins to afraid to stick up for the policies they are meant to enforce. <strong>]</strong>] 20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Re ''"Interesting question. You should raise it as ]"'' - That process (of which I have actively participated in!) turned to farce. All of the Moderators even resigned! '''Note to those who desire a change:''' Its back to pushing this issue on every relevant article page. Regards. ] (]) 20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: We are not allowed to do that any longer as discussion has been archived and an editor blocked for asking why see for more. <strong>]</strong>] 20:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@Redking7 - (reposting same reply as earlier today) ... And there are states where, like ]/], the opposite is the case. E.g.: |
|
|
:* ]/]/]/] |
|
|
:* ]/]/] |
|
|
:* ]/]/] |
|
|
:* ]/] |
|
|
:As we all know, too, hardly any articles on states on WP are located at their "official" names. This discussion is taking place at ]. Nobody is "singling" Ireland out. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Re "We are not allowed to do that any longer as discussion has been archived and an editor blocked for asking why" - This is Misplaced Pages - Of course we are allowed discuss matters pertaining to articles on their Talk pages! |
|
|
|
|
|
::Re the China "counter-example" referred to above, '''Below I recycle some China/Ireland type arguement |
|
|
|
|
|
:::In case any genuine non-POV users might get confused and consider ] some sort of acceptable example to follow: |
|
|
:::*PRC (Peoples Republic of China) is the ''official name'' of the most widely recognised China. The large majority of countries recognise the PRC as the only Chinese State; |
|
|
:::*ROC (Republic of China) is the ''official name'' of the much less recognised China - more commonly know as Taiwan (which is where the non-Communists established themselves after the Chinese Civil War and where the Communists have never ruled). A minority of countries, for example, the ] recognise only the ROC (Taiwan) as the Chinese State; |
|
|
:::That is broadly the reason for the way the ], the ] and the ] have the article names they do. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::In contrast: |
|
|
:::*RoI (]) is ''not the official name'' of the Irish State; |
|
|
:::*"Ireland" is the name by which the Irish State is recognised by every country in the world (including even UK of GB and NI!); |
|
|
:::In short, there is '''''no comparison between the Chinese and Irish article names!''''' Regards. ] (]) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re Congo and Korea - Firstly, none of the 4 states concerned claim to be simply "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be. More importantly, even if the Congos or Koreas did claim they should be known simply as "Congo" or "Korea" as the case may be - they would be claims of multiple states. In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland and that name is recognised by every state in the world without qualms. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re ], that name is more comparable with the ] (check where that link brings you - its a DAB, somethin I suppor Ireland becoming). No comparison with Ireland. Regards. ] (]) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So what is your argument? Is it (a) that the state should be at ] because that is the official name? (Reply: Most articles on states are not at the official names of the sates.) Or is it (b) that 'states take precedence over identically named geographic regions'? (Reply: Above I have linked to examples where geographic regions take "precedence" over states.) Or is it (c) both? (Reply: So you think that Ireland ''is'' a special case?) |
|
|
:"In contrast Ireland is the only state in the world that asserts that its name is Ireland..." This is not an encyclopedia of states. It is a general encyclopedia. The state is not the only thing in the world named "Ireland". |
|
|
:Also, I think you need to look again at the ] page. --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sounds like those "counter-examples" did not amount to much. My argument is the same as it was above, namely: |
|
|
|
|
|
There are a bunch of states that have geographic names that do not fully correspond with their borders – Examples: |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include ]; |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include ]; |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include ]; |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include the ]; |
|
|
*] – The state of that name does not include lots of places in South Africa such as ]; |
|
|
....The names of all of the above states have Misplaced Pages articles that follow their usual names.Why is ] being singled out? |
|
|
|
|
|
Re, ], you might need to clarify for me and the other reders. Regards. ] (]) 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:So your argument is (b) that 'states take precedence over geographic areas'. I gave you counter counter examples. |
|
|
:(RE: "Micronesia". At ] I see an article. At ] I see a dab page. Did you say that you see differently or did you just mean that just America page was a dab? (I might have the wrong end of the stick.)) --<span style="font-family:Bunchló GC,BunchlÛ GC,inherit,sans-serif;">rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>(])</small></span> 22:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestion == |
|
== Suggestion == |
Why are we having these same article title discussions again and again and again? Redking7, I swear you have cut and pasted that same post numerous times on different pages, including twice on this page in the last few days. It is nothing more than forum shopping, and will have no more of a constructive effect than it did the last time you pasted it. We understand your argument. We don't necessarily agree with it, but simply repeating it will not change that.
Its patently clear that nothing practical can come from discussion on this page (with regards to the title). Nothing. ArbCom have made that so with their move sanction. The only way anything is going to change is through WT:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. So, I urge you all: if you genuinely have an interest in resolving this dispute, engage there. Ignore any further comments on this page about the article title, since it has turned into a talking shop. POV pushing does not need to be countered here, because any attempts to use the artificial "consensus" to justify a change in the title/content will result in a block (as Domer found out yesterday). Just ignore it, and instead focus on the forum where a practical solution can be found. 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
