| Revision as of 21:28, 2 March 2010 editLaurel Lodged (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users66,338 edits not really← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:40, 2 March 2010 edit undoRashersTierney (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,046 edits →References: again, please reconsider your approachNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| :::::Not really. As a reader as much as an ed. here, I'd love to see those baronies articles developed systematically. Particularly interested in Iffa and Offa East if you and others get around to it. I'll be as supportive as I can in the work on those, but please take on board the modest request not to force them into established articles. ] (]) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | :::::Not really. As a reader as much as an ed. here, I'd love to see those baronies articles developed systematically. Particularly interested in Iffa and Offa East if you and others get around to it. I'll be as supportive as I can in the work on those, but please take on board the modest request not to force them into established articles. ] (]) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: You still refuse to engage with the substantive issue. With my peace-making compromise, your original grounds of objection have largely disappeared. All that remains is to decide what to do with the explanatory note. Let's remind ourselves what is now at issue here - the insertion of 4 words ("the barony of x"). Your proposal may be modest but it is not reasonable. Your continued objections, not backed up by reasoned argument, smack more of pique than a desire to maintain encyclopediaic consistency. ] (]) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | :::::: You still refuse to engage with the substantive issue. With my peace-making compromise, your original grounds of objection have largely disappeared. All that remains is to decide what to do with the explanatory note. Let's remind ourselves what is now at issue here - the insertion of 4 words ("the barony of x"). Your proposal may be modest but it is not reasonable. Your continued objections, not backed up by reasoned argument, smack more of pique than a desire to maintain encyclopediaic consistency. ] (]) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::] is not an optional extra. If I am exhibiting 'pique', it has to do with time and effort involved in moving such a minor issue forward. ] (]) 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I was not aware of a wider dispute - maybe we should choose a more central location for our discussion, perhaps ]? Anyway, I don't think such details as the chief towns of neighbouring baronies add anything of value to a village's article, be it within the article proper or as a note. Similarly, the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 probably needn't be mentioned in every village article. Linking both to ] and to the village's own barony should be sufficient. ] (]) 15:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | :I was not aware of a wider dispute - maybe we should choose a more central location for our discussion, perhaps ]? Anyway, I don't think such details as the chief towns of neighbouring baronies add anything of value to a village's article, be it within the article proper or as a note. Similarly, the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 probably needn't be mentioned in every village article. Linking both to ] and to the village's own barony should be sufficient. ] (]) 15:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Agree. As regards moving to ], I can't recall ever seeing a TP that looked less like one. Whats going on there? ] (]) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | ::Agree. As regards moving to ], I can't recall ever seeing a TP that looked less like one. Whats going on there? ] (]) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:40, 2 March 2010
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Laurel Lodged, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Thanks, TTGL | Talk to me! 22:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks TTGL. Are you like my handler or mentor now?Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Generally speaking there are no special 'buddies', but most eds. will be happy to help new Wikipedians out if you contact them on their Talk Pages. Welcome aboard and happy editing. RashersTierney (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
New articles
Hi Laural! You said "I am also interested in putting up pages that are not on Misplaced Pages, but are of local significance." What kind of articles do you have in mind? I'd be delighted to help if they are within my expertise. Fergananim (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking of starting some pages on the baronies of Ireland. Tipperary is as good a place to start as any. Perhaps showing how the baronies may have had their origins in older Gaelic chiefdoms (or may just have been Norman creations). Does this interest you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Intrigueing. Have you looked up Trícha cét? Paul MacCotter's Medieval Ireland: Territorial, Political and Economic Divisions (2008, ISBN978 1 84682 098 4) is the best single book on the subject, and covers all Ireland. Including Tipperary. I had begun in Connacht but can do a few for Tipp. What baronies would you like to start with? Fergananim (talk)
- Dedicated articles on the baronies could be very interesting, rather than shoehorning them into the leads of established articles about towns and villages. They could of course be linked from these. Go for it. RashersTierney (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've not seen the book. I'll look it up. Meanwhile, for starters, what about Eliogarty? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Dedicated articles on the baronies could be very interesting, rather than shoehorning them into the leads of established articles about towns and villages. They could of course be linked from these. Go for it. RashersTierney (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Intrigueing. Have you looked up Trícha cét? Paul MacCotter's Medieval Ireland: Territorial, Political and Economic Divisions (2008, ISBN978 1 84682 098 4) is the best single book on the subject, and covers all Ireland. Including Tipperary. I had begun in Connacht but can do a few for Tipp. What baronies would you like to start with? Fergananim (talk)
Thurles
Not implying that your eds. can't be incorporated somewhere in article, but not at lead. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why not the lead? The lead already sets out a geographical hierarchy (country, county, town). The addition of barony merely completes the picture without violating the strict hierarchy (country, county, barony, town). Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Relative emphasis. RashersTierney (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK But what about 3.3 Opening paragraph:The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader? In an article devoted to a geographic entity, surely an unambiguous, strict, verifiable, hierarchical definition is pre-eminant? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article is about much more than 'geography' strictly defined. Its as much about history, politics, sport, commerce, personalities etc. Have a look at Irish (and other) towns of equivalent size to get a gist of what is usually located at the lead. Don't expect perfect consistency, but ideally there should be an overall compatibility. RashersTierney (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- In light of your revert at the lead, I guess I've been wasting my time here. RashersTierney (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now, now Rashers, there no need to get in a miff. It's just that i felt that your argument for the non-inclusion of baronies in the header didn't stack up. By the logic set out above, any article which deals with history, politics, sport, commerce, personalities etc. should have all this set forth in the header. This does not make practical sense - a header is a header, not a perfect abstract. And if it was otherwise, thenevery other article on every other Irish town would also include all of the above in their headers. But they don't. So i think that i'm entitled to stict to a strict geographical interpretation of the bare minumum for the header and then let the article take it's own direction. IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thats just misinterpreting what I said (at considerable length). The lead is intended to give a succinct impression of the overall content. Having such detail on the baronies at the lead gives it undue weight. Please reconsider your current pattern of editing this and similar articles. RashersTierney (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think that it's a mis-interpretation of what you said, more a case of bringing it to it's logical (and messy) conclusion. But for the sake of peace I've amended them. I've put most of the baronial details in the References section. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thats just misinterpreting what I said (at considerable length). The lead is intended to give a succinct impression of the overall content. Having such detail on the baronies at the lead gives it undue weight. Please reconsider your current pattern of editing this and similar articles. RashersTierney (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Now, now Rashers, there no need to get in a miff. It's just that i felt that your argument for the non-inclusion of baronies in the header didn't stack up. By the logic set out above, any article which deals with history, politics, sport, commerce, personalities etc. should have all this set forth in the header. This does not make practical sense - a header is a header, not a perfect abstract. And if it was otherwise, thenevery other article on every other Irish town would also include all of the above in their headers. But they don't. So i think that i'm entitled to stict to a strict geographical interpretation of the bare minumum for the header and then let the article take it's own direction. IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- In light of your revert at the lead, I guess I've been wasting my time here. RashersTierney (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article is about much more than 'geography' strictly defined. Its as much about history, politics, sport, commerce, personalities etc. Have a look at Irish (and other) towns of equivalent size to get a gist of what is usually located at the lead. Don't expect perfect consistency, but ideally there should be an overall compatibility. RashersTierney (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK But what about 3.3 Opening paragraph:The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader? In an article devoted to a geographic entity, surely an unambiguous, strict, verifiable, hierarchical definition is pre-eminant? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Lead section#Relative emphasis. RashersTierney (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
February 2010
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
References
I saw this edit, where you added "references" that actually are just footnotes or comments. While I'm not sure about the importance of the barony in which an Irish town lies (does anybody living there care or even know more than a hundred years after their abolishment?), in any case a secondary source would be better than just a footnote that isn't really verifiable by the average reader. Do you know where to find one? Huon (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. They are being given entirely too much prominence in marginally related articles, as I have already pointed out here. Laurel Lodged proposed developing dedicated articles on the Baronies of Ireland, which seems to me a more constructive approach. They are no longer of sufficient importance as to appear in article leads on towns and villages. My attempts to suggest as much earlier have been largely ignored. RashersTierney (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I must disagree with the two assessments above. Firstly the unit of land called a "barony" has not been aboloshed. The barons, in the Republic of Ireland, are gone and have no place. Their titles are now purely honorific. The baronies on the other hand, still retain legal force, particularly in matters of probate and property rights. All old title deeds will usually refer to the barony. As you know, possession is nine tenths of the law. Why would you want to write off such a major fraction so glibly? Secondly, the contributions of Rashers have not been ignored. His erroneous assertions have been refuted - that's not the same thing as ignoring them. Furthermore, in the interests of peace, I proposed a sensible compromise that would reduce the header prominance of the barony while retaining the info elsewhere for those interested in pursuing it. I received no response to this proposal. It was for this reason that it was necessary to put the additional information elsewhere - the Reference section seemed most sensible. I have no objection to a new section of "Notes" being added, though it appears a touch of overkill. Lastly, I have begun my work on the Baronies of Ireland. I invite your contributions to the article "Eliogarty". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing I said has been 'refuted'. Such prominence in the lead is inappropriate and nothing more than a distraction. The arcane practice of retaining the names of these former administrative districts in title deeds has no legal bearing where land boundaries are now accurately surveyed. The precise limits of the baronies are largely unknown due to movement of stream courses, ditches and other long-gone physical features. They are of some historical interest, and their study can shed light on the development of civil and ecclesiastical parishes and as a possible reference to older ownership, but lets not get carried away. RashersTierney (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- You don't like refute? Would rebut be a more accurate description? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. As a reader as much as an ed. here, I'd love to see those baronies articles developed systematically. Particularly interested in Iffa and Offa East if you and others get around to it. I'll be as supportive as I can in the work on those, but please take on board the modest request not to force them into established articles. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- You still refuse to engage with the substantive issue. With my peace-making compromise, your original grounds of objection have largely disappeared. All that remains is to decide what to do with the explanatory note. Let's remind ourselves what is now at issue here - the insertion of 4 words ("the barony of x"). Your proposal may be modest but it is not reasonable. Your continued objections, not backed up by reasoned argument, smack more of pique than a desire to maintain encyclopediaic consistency. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- WP:AGF is not an optional extra. If I am exhibiting 'pique', it has to do with time and effort involved in moving such a minor issue forward. RashersTierney (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- You still refuse to engage with the substantive issue. With my peace-making compromise, your original grounds of objection have largely disappeared. All that remains is to decide what to do with the explanatory note. Let's remind ourselves what is now at issue here - the insertion of 4 words ("the barony of x"). Your proposal may be modest but it is not reasonable. Your continued objections, not backed up by reasoned argument, smack more of pique than a desire to maintain encyclopediaic consistency. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. As a reader as much as an ed. here, I'd love to see those baronies articles developed systematically. Particularly interested in Iffa and Offa East if you and others get around to it. I'll be as supportive as I can in the work on those, but please take on board the modest request not to force them into established articles. RashersTierney (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- You don't like refute? Would rebut be a more accurate description? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing I said has been 'refuted'. Such prominence in the lead is inappropriate and nothing more than a distraction. The arcane practice of retaining the names of these former administrative districts in title deeds has no legal bearing where land boundaries are now accurately surveyed. The precise limits of the baronies are largely unknown due to movement of stream courses, ditches and other long-gone physical features. They are of some historical interest, and their study can shed light on the development of civil and ecclesiastical parishes and as a possible reference to older ownership, but lets not get carried away. RashersTierney (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I must disagree with the two assessments above. Firstly the unit of land called a "barony" has not been aboloshed. The barons, in the Republic of Ireland, are gone and have no place. Their titles are now purely honorific. The baronies on the other hand, still retain legal force, particularly in matters of probate and property rights. All old title deeds will usually refer to the barony. As you know, possession is nine tenths of the law. Why would you want to write off such a major fraction so glibly? Secondly, the contributions of Rashers have not been ignored. His erroneous assertions have been refuted - that's not the same thing as ignoring them. Furthermore, in the interests of peace, I proposed a sensible compromise that would reduce the header prominance of the barony while retaining the info elsewhere for those interested in pursuing it. I received no response to this proposal. It was for this reason that it was necessary to put the additional information elsewhere - the Reference section seemed most sensible. I have no objection to a new section of "Notes" being added, though it appears a touch of overkill. Lastly, I have begun my work on the Baronies of Ireland. I invite your contributions to the article "Eliogarty". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was not aware of a wider dispute - maybe we should choose a more central location for our discussion, perhaps Talk:Baronies of Ireland? Anyway, I don't think such details as the chief towns of neighbouring baronies add anything of value to a village's article, be it within the article proper or as a note. Similarly, the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 probably needn't be mentioned in every village article. Linking both to Baronies of Ireland and to the village's own barony should be sufficient. Huon (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. As regards moving to Talk:Baronies of Ireland, I can't recall ever seeing a TP that looked less like one. Whats going on there? RashersTierney (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)