Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kim Dent-Brown (talk | contribs) at 00:36, 31 January 2013 (→Open a discussion at WT:GAA: No more recategorising please.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Church of the Immaculate Conception, Dublin

Thanks for restoring that section and adding a reference, but referencing should be better. For example, St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin suggests it is not the largest in Dublin. Cheers. PS. You might wish setting up automatic or manual archiving for this talk - it is currently 170k long. Materialscientist (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Add citation for claim to being the largest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Northumberland

It is still a living and breathing county . Leaky Caldron 21:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In folk memory and tradition only. It has no legal basis. It's possible to say that "it was a county", not that "it is a county". Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Northumberland County Council is a unitary authority presumably representing the county of Northumberland. If, as you say, Northumberland has no legal basis then it shouldn't have a section describing its own Northumberland#Politics should it? Leaky Caldron 21:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"The districts were abolished on 1 April 2009, the county council becoming a unitary authority." The area under the jurisdiction of the unitary authority is the area previously standing in the county. With the creation of the one, the other was abolished. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, it became a non-metropolitan county in 2009 (as well as a unitary authority). So to the extend that non-metropolitan county has the word county in it, it is still a county. Probably not as precise as ceremonial county however. That's fine, thanks for the chat. Leaky Caldron 22:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Cork - City and county hall pics

Hi. A thought on the removal and replacement of county/city hall pics. While I agree that the County Hall pic possibly shouldn't have been placed next to the "local govt" section (as possibly confusing), I'm not sure that has "no place" at all? (It was the country's tallest building for 40 years after all - and remains a city landmark). Also, we now have three different images of the city hall dotted through-out the article (one in the infobox, a second illustrating "local govt", and a third illustrating "places of interest".) This is a little much. Wouldn't it possibly have been better to "swap" the city and county hall images. (City hall to illustrate local govt. And County hall under places of interest?). Guliolopez (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I agree the 3 city hall pics is excessive. 1 should go. If the county hall is to go in the "places of interest" section,thenthe caption should make it clear that it is not associated with the city government. OK? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As you appear to have noted, I made the changes. I see that you also removed a pic of the Elysian on similar grounds. While I have no issue with this in itself, two things struck me. (1) Your caps lock seems to be have gotten stuck - as your edit summ seemed a little shouty. And (2) the stated rationale (that 3 pics is too many) seemed off. As I only counted 2 - And in one of these the Elysian is barely noticeable in the background. Anyway, no issue, just wanted to close the loop. Guliolopez (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Archbishop of Dublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Dublin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

GAA Clubs

I disagree with you removing the name of the town from GAA clubs. While the club may officially be called Blarney GAA, most people will call it just Blarney. Therefore if you look at the championship lists for all the counties, only the town appears, but when linked, the real name will show up. I will wait for your comments before changing Muskerry GAA. Pmunited (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Many such articles only use the town article as often there is no article for the club per se. Disguising this reality by omitting the club's GAA suffix allows this decepton to continue. The name is the name. If there are local nicknames for the club, this can be deat with in the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you. If I accept your argument, then we will have to change every GAA page and probably most rugby & soccer ones. We will have make sure, for example, that all references to Chelsea in soccer, state that we are working with Chelsea Football Club and not Chelsea. Pmunited (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most GAA club articles in Wiki probably should be have their full name listed and not be pipe linked to something that could either be a soccer club or a rugby club or a GAA club or a small vilage. In Ireland, this is necessary as nobody outside of the small village would know the difference. Chelsea's in a different league though, both literally and metaphorically. Most people happening upon it, especially in context, would expect to find the club and so a piped solution would be preferable for brevity. The deciding test here is, "What would a common person expect to find?". Also, isn't it a bit arrogant to assume that only 1 sporting organisation would want to wrap itself in the mantle of the town's name? For example, there's Thurles Town soccer club and Thurles Sarsfields GAA club. Should the GAA have exclusive rights to the name? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of civil parishes of County Cork, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Franciscans in Ireland

Category:Franciscans in Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies in Ireland

Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies in Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Local administrative units of Ireland

Template:Local administrative units of Ireland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland

Category:LAU-1 authorities in the Republic of Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protection for Nontrinitarianism

Hi, we haven't talked before but I've noted the good job you've done in keeping this and other articles clean. I have reverted IP to your last edit. If you go for page protection you may cut paste this sentence as being a seconding voice. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

St Jude's

Hi, regarding St Judes; I searched EPPI and Google books; it looks like St Jude's was created out of St James' some time between 1861 and 1867. The OSI mapviewer's 25-inch maps are mostly from later than the 6-inch maps (1880-1910) and the 25-inch gives "St Jude's" (though I had to zoom in to the maximum to bring it up, which means you can't see all the letters at once). jnestorius 21:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks for your labours. So must all 6 townlands of St Jude's be attributed to Castleknock or only some of them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IMOS

Just showing you an example of discussions on this, I dont want to edit war with you over this. Here is on the last and actually short discussion on this, . Cheers.Murry1975 (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason for my second reversion of your edit is summarised in the contribution of user Mabuska: "Unless the island of Ireland is being mentioned, stating just Ireland pipe-linked to Republic of Ireland is the way to go". As the two sentences go on to draw distinctions between the situation pertaining in the RoI and the whole island, then this needs to be made explicit. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The island is pipelinked as per WP:IRE-IRL, as was the mentions of the state. Until it was unlinked. So do you want it relinked?Murry1975 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No. The first pipelink is correct. Normally, subsequent mentions would just use "Ireland" unpiped, as you mention above. However, this must be set aside because the first sentance is exclusively for the RoI (the airport wikilink actually says RoI). The next sentence is for the whole island of Ireland (and ever repeats the RoI airports in the list). How would readers know to distinguish "Ireland" from "the island of Ireland"? An unpiped RoI achieves the required disambiguation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Only one sentence mentions the island and that is correctly and unmistakably pipelinked as such "It is the busiest on the island of Ireland followed by Belfast International Airport, George Best Belfast City Airport, Cork and Shannon." The first two are deealing with the state, the third clearly the island. Throwing three Irelands into three sentences would confuse the reader.Murry1975 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion woiuld also result in 3 Irelands in the lead: 1. Ireland (piped from Roi) 2. Ireland (unpiped) and 3. Ireland (piped from island of Ireland). That's not more confusing? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How about include the second mention in the pipelink I will do it and see what you think. CheersMurry1975 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Counter-proposal that avoids need for RoI or Ireland at all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Saw that, grammar wise state is not capitalised.Murry1975 (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Upper tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland

Template:Upper tier local government areas in the Republic of Ireland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Counties of Ireland by category

Template:Counties of Ireland by category has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Church of Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diocese of Dublin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Counties of Ireland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Canterbury Tail talk 23:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

ya laurel i finally figured out how to send you a message,,,if you see something somewhere else delete it cuz i dont know what i did,,,but i was commenting on the remarks you are contesting(if thats how it works) on john deCourcy,,ya my last name is DeCourcy and i was looking at his wiki page and saw that you had contested something (that paragraph) and i just wanted to tell you what a good job your doing,cuz i believe your right on it,,,,he (decursi)or DECourcy invaded ireland and so he didnt make anyones life that much better than it was without him there,,,good luck to you ,,i hope they change it cuz i think your right ,,,if i ever get to ireland id like to buy you a cup of tea,,,,you seem like someone that could tell me a greast deal about ireland,,thanx again and keep up the good work,,,email,,,,,,deacon54@msn.com Deacon1949 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_category_norms

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Ireland_category_norms. KarlB (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

Fabulous work! Keep up the excellent job. I'm very impressed by what you've done with the page. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Two of the dioceses (Down and Connor), and (Dromore), are entirely in the borders of the United Kingdom. Misplaced Pages organizes the dioceses based on political borders, not on ecclesistical lines. Thus, they are not part of 'Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland', despite being suffragan to Armagh. The border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is one of the few that do not square up with the diocese boundaries.Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have amended the article accordingly. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Unusual Division of Tipperary

Hi Laurel Lodged, Can I ask you to choose a form of words that you are satisfied with to describe the division of Co. Tipperary for administrative purposes? I reason the following: 1) The county proper is not divided. There is only one Co. Tipperary. 2) The division is for administrative purposes only, resulting in two County Councils. 3) Other than Co. Dublin, other counties are kept more-or-less whole for local government purposes. 4) This division is sufficiently unusual to merit comment early in the WP article. 5) As it currently stands the wording in place is both unclear and ambiguous. Rykersmith (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is a non problem really. There is no administrative division of Co. Tipperary. The county has no administrative function. Administration in the area of the county is carried on by entities unrelated to the county (other than by history). Dublin is more clean cut in that it was formally abolished. Tipperary was never formally abolished but may be regarded as being de facto abolished as no functions now apertain to the county. I'm happy with the lead as it now reads. I don't find the wording to be unclear or ambiguous. The History section can clarify it if it emerges.Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Barony of Dublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donnybrook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

St Peter's

The link between the two sentences, with the semi-colon, is now appropriate because the one explains the other, whereas the statement about St Peter's being a Major Basilica has no bearing. But please stop inserting the word "instead". St John's is not the cathedral instead of St Peter's. It is the cathedral because it has always been the cathedral.

On the contrary, one might make a statement like: "Many papal functions are performed at St Peter's instead of St John Lateran for reasons of size, proximity to Vatican (or whatever)." In other words, there is good reason to think that the pope would do everything at St John's because he is bishop there, so St Peter's is a sort of "stand-in". "Instead" would be correct in that case.

Amandajm (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have in mind only one definition of the word "instead". Per Webster's it has 2 definitions. It is the latter use that is intended in this article. "1.: as a substitute or equivalent <was going to write but called instead> 2: as an alternative to something expressed or implied". As such, it is perfectly acceptable to use it in this second sense. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The key word there is "alternative". St John's is not "an alternative".

Why bother arguing about something so minor? What matters is clarity of expression, not whether you can interpret a dictionary meaning to prove that what you have written may be technically acceptable. Part of what happens on Misplaced Pages is that people correct other people's grammar and expression. There are editors here who are superbly good at that sort of thing and do almost nothing but. Handle it!

Amandajm (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice on Fingal

Hi Laurel, I am asking you this as, I have gathered from my interaction with yourself, you know your P's and Q's on counties. There is a new editor who is removing the fact that Fingal is a county, Dobbs1996, on both the Fingal and Dublin Airport articles, and badly at that- deleting only one instance of occurance in each. I throw a few quick refs on the airport talkpage here. My question being, is there a more usible source? They claim "The Oireachtas did not create County Fingal. By passing the Local Government Act of 1993 the Oireachtas created Dublin City Council, South Dublin County Council, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and Fingal County Council. They did NOT create county Fingal. There are 32 counties in the island of Ireland and Fingal is not one of them.", which I find very POV. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I saw the Airport vandalism but was happy that you handled it. This is just another example of "A nattion once againism" that is rife on the Ireland pages. The squabbling on the talk page of Counties of Ireland is a more polite form of Dobbs' crude attempts. If you go into the Fingal page page you'll see that County Dublin was actaully abolished in 1994. So that makes 32 -1 = 31 counties !! The area lost its administrative county status in 1994, with Section 9 Part 1(a) of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1993 stating that "the county shall cease to exist". As for a county council, the area under the administration of Mayo County Council is County Mayo. The area under the administration of Fingal County Council is Fingal. The clue is in the name - county. The Schedule to the legislation lists all 29 counties in the RoI (that's right - 29). Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Laurel, I came across the Counties of Ireland talkpage a few minutes ago, I have to say I find it frustrating that people see the historic counties as primary, I havent came across it much on other articles I have read outside of Ireland eg. Greater Manchester v Lancashire- I am not saying it doesnt go on, but definitly to the extent we have on Irish articles. Murry1975 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of Palamism to Theology of Gregory Palamas

LoveMonkey has objected to the title Palamism on the grounds that it is a POV neologism created by Catholics to dismiss and malign Orthodox theology. I grant that the term has been used that way but I couldn't think of a better title until Cody7777777 suggested Theology of Gregory Palamas. Please provide your input at Talk:Palamism. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Shannon Region

Notice: Your deletion nomination for the Shannon Region article didn't post correctly at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Apparently some sort of error occurred. Northamerica1000 19:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you need to create the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shannon Region, I think. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion page is created, you just need to provide a deletion rationale. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

King's shilling

Hi - I've had to remove most of the material you added to King's shilling, because it seems to have been directly copied and pasted from and . If you take information from other websites, you can't just copy it directly - you need to completely rewrite it in your own words. Feel free to re-add the information from those sources, if you're willing to re-write it. Thanks, Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 16:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Cathedrals

Hi, I think we've now got a useful pair of hatnotes at Ferns Cathedral and St Aidan's Cathedral, which should help anyone who arrives on the wrong page to see what the difference is and where they need to go. I hadn't spotted that Aidan and Edan were so confusable! And the one area seems to have the only cathedral worldwide (or Misplaced Pages-wide, anyway) for each name. If a cathedral of the Irish diaspora named for Aidan/Edan turns up in NZ or somewhere we'd have to tweak the hatnotes. (I know of a St Aidan's church, with the most amazing Brangwyn mosaics, but it's no cathedral). Hope you agree with what we've now got. I also created a bunch of redirects from variants of the name of the United Diocese, while in the area. PamD 18:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK I can live with the hatnotes as opposed to the disambigpage. As if 2 variants of Aidan/Edan were not enough, both re-direct to Máedóc of Ferns - the Gaelic name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mid-West Region, Ireland

The merge has taken place, and as I noted in my closing comments, I looked into the title, and saw that under our article title guidelines, in particular WP:Common name, that Shannon Region is the appropriate name due to widespread use of that name for the region. I'm not sure if you are aware of what I had done and disagreed with it, or simply that you thought the merge hadn't taken place. SilkTork 12:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've picked up your comment at Talk:Mid-West Region, Ireland, and will respond there. It appears you have misunderstood what has happened. SilkTork 12:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Barony of Barrymore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cantred

Castlemartyr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lismore

Christ Church Cathedral, Waterford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Diocese of Waterford

Cloyne Cathedral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saint Colman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philip de Barry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shandon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

David fitzGerald...

Uh, you just did a cut-and-paste move of this, didn't you? You just lost the entire history of the article and made it look like I had nothing to do with the article, when in fact, David FitzGerald is essentially what I started and worked on. There's a reason that cut and paste moves are not considered a good idea.. see Misplaced Pages:Moving a page#Fixing cut and paste moves. Can you kindly fix it? Or if you're not an admin, kindly ping an admin to get it fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

St. Doulagh's Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Olave

Ulster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hugh de Lacy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Churches

What on earth are you doing with all those moves?

• Why are you removing the names of the parishes from the article titles and replacing them with "Dublin"? Sure, all the churches are in Dublin, but churches are an integral part of the parish to which they minster and are known by the Parish name, even when people have forgotten the name of the dedication i.e. people might say "Bloggs Hill Catholic Church" rather than "Holy Family Church, Bloggs Hill".

• Moreover, the name of the denomination is not essential, but, unless the church is exceptionally well known, it is certainly convenient to add it. This is the case in countries where there are several common denominations. It isn't necessary in places where one denomination overwhelmingly predominates, such as Italy or Spain. In cases such as this, a church only needs its denomination stated if it is not Roman Catholic, or in the case of English villages, if it is not Anglican. In the context of Ireland, outside Dublin, Catholic churches predominate to an extent that I wouldn't bother to identify churches by denomination, unless they are not Roman Catholic.

If it is necessary to identify a church by denomination, then don't put the denomination in brackets. That is a clumsy way of doing it. In places where there is likely to be confusion, the denomination simply follows the name.

Just identify the churches as "Holy Family Roman Catholic Church, Bloggs Hill" and "Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Bloggs Hollow".

• The same goes for cathedrals, which are usually simply identified as "Editham Cathedral", "Tatchester Cathedral" and so on. But if there are two, then they are identified as "St Augustine's Anglican Cathedral, Tatchester" and "St Mary's Roman Catholic Cathedral, Tatchester", or as "Tatchester Anglican Cathedra" and "Tatchester Roman Catholic Cathedral". NOTE: for "Anglican" substitute "Church of England", 'Church of Ireland", "Episcopal" as required.

Amandajm (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• The situation of "parallel churches" exists across Australia, North America, and in all the major cities of England. Although it may be tempting to see Ireland as a special case, it isn't. While the historic situation in Australia and North America was different to that of Ireland, the co-existence of Catholics, and those of the Anglican and other Protestant traditions is the same. Across Australia, every substantial village or rural area has (or has had) two churches.
• With regards to the street name: This is a matter that may need individual consideration. There are many cases where the street name, or the non-suburbial location has always been traditional to the name of the church. So if a church is always known locally as "St Catherine's, Margaret Street", then it needs to be identified as such. Add the name of the town. Don't remove the street name that identifies the church to the locals. Typical examples are "St James, King Street", "St Mary-le-Strand", "St Pauls without the Walls". Churches are generally only known by their street name (or other similar identifier such as "Blackfriars" or "By the Wardrobe", or "On the Hill") when they are in a densely populated city with small parishes, and a single city name.
• Parish names must take precedence over the city name in the case of a large city with suburbs. Dublin is not a huge city. Metropolitan Sydney, by comparison, has a 45 mile radius. London is vast. For this reason, parishes must be used as the identifier for the church. In a case such as "St Peter's, Phibsborough" it is absolutely ridiculous to remove the parish name that the church identifies by, and refer to it as "St Peter's Church, Dublin (Roman Catholic). Call it St Peter's Roman Catholic Church, Phibsborough" by all means, but don't remove the parish name, because it is simply inappropriate to do so.
• It is also quite usual, as I believe I have already said, that in places where there are two parallel church traditions, that the words Roman Catholic, Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist etc are placed after the name, not tagged on the end in brackets. It simply isn't the way it is done.

Worldwide, churches in that situation are known as "St Mary, Star of the Sea Catholic Church, Wolli Point", "St Martin's Church of England, Chandlers Lane, Tatchester", "St Paul's Presbyterian Church, Editham", "George Street Uniting Church, Coaltown" and ""Riverdale Regional Baptist Church". It is not appropriate to invent a different way of designating the denomination.

Amandajm (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Amandajm on the above. While the original article names may not have been the best, the replacements are not appropriate. Hohenloh 09:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no concensus for Amandajm to undertake a mass reversion. This debate is far from over. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There was certainly no consensus or precedence for you to make the original changes. I fully support Amandajm's reasoning and reverts. Hohenloh 15:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too. Johnbod (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Fingal

The person which is disruptively editing Fingal is claiming to be Eithne Loftus, a Fine Gael member of Fingal County Council. Amazing, if true! Snappy (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious! Can we prove it? Can't wait to leak it if true. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it can be proved, but if true it makes me weep for the state of our elected representatives! Snappy (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

True. Sentiment is no substitute for aptitude. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP is back and reverting like mad, I going to seek page protection again, but I cannot edit any more. Can you revert? Snappy (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont think they are claiming to be Loftus, I think its either a qoute or an e-mail from Loftus to the IP. It is getting silly from them at this stage. Murry1975 (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ministry of of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Ireland)

There is a typo here: double 'of'. Snappy (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. I'll request a rename. BTW, I've done a re-org of Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland. The main thing was to put a bunch of quangos into Category:Government agencies of the Republic of Ireland. Also a tidy up on central governement. Wasn't quite sure what to call it - the "cabinet", the "executive branch" etc. "Central government" seemed clearest. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look at your Irish govt cat changes, and they seem sensible. Snappy (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Glad you agree. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Category Ministry of of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Ireland)

If you accidentally misspelled a category, you can just list it at the speedy rename section. I've already done this for you. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories for Irish government departments

Several categories have recently been created for Irish government departments. There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 10#Irish_government_departments about whether they should be renamed, where your comments will be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Central government of the Republic of Ireland

Category:Central government of the Republic of Ireland, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Map for Cashel and Emly

You asked for a generic map of the parish boundaries. Perhaps this map will serve. MartinCollin 17:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)MartinCollin

MOS/Regional Authorities

Hi ho. Can you please refer me to the MOS page/discussion/whatever that you refer to in this edit? I can't seem to find where it was discussed/agreed that all lead sections for Irish cities would refer to the regional authority stuff? (I looked at MOS:IE, WP:IE and WP:IWNB, and I'm not finding it. Would be great if you could direct me so I understand the rationale.) Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said anything about regional authorities in that edit; the edit was about the Region. I never said that the agreement included the cities; I said that the agreement covered the counties. It was my extrapolation to say that the agreement could be taken to cover the cities because, like counties, they too are first level entities of local government. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If there was an extrapolation then fine. However, can you please point me to the page where that discussion/agreement occurred (either in relation to counties, cities or whatever)? Guliolopez (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's all at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 14#New county intros. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't read the resolution of that discussion as supporting a consensus to include the region in the lead. (In fact the resolution seems to read that "The question of who is responsible for local government in each of these areas — and the extent of their authority — can be dealt with later in the introduction", without explicitly referring to regional authorities at all. Or how they might be dealt with. In fact, regional authorities barely feature in the discussion at all). So, to my read, there might be more than one "extrapolation" at play here. Personally, I don't think the "South West Regional Authority" has enough relevance to the city or its governance to be mentioned in the lead. However I don't have the energy to engage on the point. (In fact, 5 minutes reading the discussion you linked me to has reminded me of why I determined to restrict my energies on the EN project in the first place). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Eliogarty

Thanks for the compliment. By the way, I have added a lot more detail on Thurles and Borrisoleigh, including maps of the civil parishes, maps of several townlands within them and a map of Thurles poor law union, which you may find interesting. Actually, several details of the townlands, including their names beg several questions which require further research. MartinCollin 21:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)MartinCollin

I'm not sure that it's a good idea to create a page for the civil parish. I don't think that it contains enough distinct material to merit it. All of it should probably be merged into the main Thurles article. The RC parish page is probably distinct enough, though even that is debatable. In the case of Templemore, Clonmore and Killea, there are two civil parishes involved so that definitely merits its own page. Not sure that the same case can be made for Thurles RC. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Merges notice

I have never seen a merge notice before. What are the rules which apply? When does the debate end? I don't know anything about this sort of feature in Misplaced Pages. I wonder how many of them there are. Where do I find out?MartinCollin (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)MartinCollin

More on merge notices

I agree with your proposal to merge "Townlands in ..." and "Townlands of ...". However, I have encountered several other merge proposals of yours that I strongly disagree with. Notions such as villages, townlands, civil parishes, electoral divisions, ecclesiastical parishes and so on are quite distinct. Distinct entities should not be merged into each other, not least because other articles will often need to refer to one entity but not to the others. The fact that two distinct entities have similar names does not make the entities identical. Merging articles which refer to different entities that happen to have the same name will cause confusion and inhibit coherent writing. For example, consider two different districts, D1 and D2, each of which happens to have the name N. Suppose that somebody merges the two articles about D1 and D2. Now suppose that somebody else wishes to discuss, say, the population history of D1. She cannot refer to the merged article. Instead, in order to make it clear that she is talking about D1 and not about D2, she will have to engage in painful circumlocutions. Badly written articles bear several stigmata, one of which is the unfortunate format "N is both a ... and a ...", for example, "Thurles is both a town and a civil parish". This kind of semiotic confusion should be avoided. To be precise one would have to write "The word 'Thurles' is a name which refers to two distinct entities, one a town and the other a civil parish". However, even when one does that, one fails to provide references points for external articles which need to refer to one concept or the other. One could write an article which had distinct sub-sections, one for the town and one for the civil parish, so that external articles could refer to Thurles#town or Thurles#civil-parish but, even here, there are problems. It is cleaner by far to give explicit recognition to the fact that the two entities of Thurles town and Thurles civil parish are distinct.MartinCollin (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic provinces in the United Kingdom

Category:Roman Catholic provinces in the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kevin McE (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Category: Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland

Is a copy of Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland, which you emptied and deleted out of process. The category structure is such that of all the Catholic dioceses in the world, they are all in Categories titled Roman Catholic dioceses of X. Every single one. Ireland is not an exception. We do not need this category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a copy. They differ in that "Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland" is a container category with only two possible entries: current and former dioceses. If the Current category was deleted then "Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland" would, misleadingly, contain former dioceses. The cat is needed. Maybe Ireland is unique in having so many former dioceses. And it's not confined to the RC church. The structure also exists for the Church of Ireland. And what supposed problem would be remedied by its deletion? The only consequence that I can see is a loss of information. Those wanting to see current categories upon clicking "Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland" would see them by one more click, thereby avoid the defunct ones. I see only benefits with no drawbacks. And BTW, the RC church in Ireland is organised on an all-island basis. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Again - look at all the other countries. They all work the same way. Roman Catholic diocese of X. We do not need 'current' in front of it. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you bother to even read read my reply? And BTW, I did not empty anything out of process as you allege. The category contains 3 subcats and a couple of lists. You, on the other hand, did in fact empty a category out of process. Neither did I delete a category as you allege. You, on the other hand deleted all categories form the cat that you emptied. If you feel so strongly about htis issue, take it to WP:CFD. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 16#Category:Current Roman Catholic dioceses in Ireland? I think you should be informed of it. Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Laurel, I have attempted to explain to you, politely, why categorization does not work this way. Ireland is not an exception to what applies across the board to all the other country categories. You emptied "Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland", out of process without informing or discussing the change with me, in order to promote it to "Current Roman Catholic dioceses of Ireland", and repopulating your now-favoured category. Why did you do that? Had you discussed it with me, I would have been happy to explain to you why that move wasn't a good one and why the status quo should be kept. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am going to report you to an admin for vandalising a page by replacing its content with "complete twaddle". SaluteChciken (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Romano-British

Hi, please note that I opposed your proposal for speedy renaming to Romano-British Christianity at WP:CFDS. However, you can of course propose renaming at a regular WP:CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 09:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Armbrust 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Association of Catholics in Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Drumcondra

Roman Catholicism in Switzerland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ordinary

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament saints

– Fayenatic London 13:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 13#Category:Old Testament saints. – Fayenatic London 20:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thread at WikiProject Ireland

I've opened a thread at WikiProject Ireland relating pages moves you have made recently. --RA (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please strike that comment

While this is no more than I would expect from you, "I know what he wrote and I know what was intended. Bullies always act with the best of intentions" crosses the line. I don't believe my posts were disrespectful, but if you ask for respect then you must show respect. Please strike that comment. Scolaire (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Christians of the Byzantine Empire

Category:Christians of the Byzantine Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bishops of Byzantium

Sorry about this, I pressed the wrong button. It is not vandalism, but "Byzantium"as in the city of Byzantium refers to the city before 330, i.e. before the "Byzantine Empire" itself. There is a distinction between the Byzantine Byzantine, i.e. a citizen of the East Roman Empire, and the people of the ancient city of Byzantium. Constantine ✍ 22:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Christianity → Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity

Stop moving items from Category:Ancient Christianity to Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity. To rename a category you would need to disscus it at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion first. tahc 23:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've only moved those items that more properly belong to Early Ancient history or Late Ancient history. While the two should be mutually exclusive, I've found that some of the items in Ancient Christianity do not lend themselves to division. I have therefore left those items there. The scope of Ancient Christianity should be changed to reflect that, where possible, an item should belong to either Early Ancient or Late Ancient unless such an assignment is not possible. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity

Category:Early Ancient history of Christianity, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity

Category:Late Ancient history of Christianity, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Theobald Walter, 1st Baron Butler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Killaloe and Cantred

William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Killaloe and Cantred

Eliogarty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Moyne

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Gaelic football again

• Again see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#You've been duped into making lots of GAA moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Abusive and personal language"

You have accused me of "personal and abusive language" in my posts referring to your unilateral move, without discussion, of dozens of GAA articles away from their long-established and stable WP:COMMONNAME titles. I stand over everything that I have ever said about your conduct and will say it again and again until you behave reasonably. Make your complaint formal or back off. Brocach (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Laurel Lodged (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's perfectly true that I was involved in edit warring. It was a last resort and was only done in the interests of protecting pages from the destructive edits of User:Brocach who was wreaking havoc at a rate that was faster than my ability to protect the pages. It was a desperate act to stem the tide of destruction from this most obdurate of editors. He has a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. He will listen to no argument that is not congruent with his own. Myself and a few other editors have engaged him in a series of parallel discussions including here, here and here. See the forced interventions of the Admin User talk:Anthony Appleyard above. In each of them it is clear that will will not listen to reason and keeps returning to the same tired arguments. The final straw for him seems to have been when a decision at WP:CFD went against him here. This touched on the same area (GAA) and involved a decision to change the name from "Tipperary hurlers" to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers. The decision has clearly infuriated him beyond all reason as he has appealed to the closing editor (Good 'ol factory) and has been leaving whiny, hand-wringing, "O the injustice of it all" comments at every one of the articles affected by the decision. See Talk:Colm Bonnar for an example. This is unseemly and disrespectful of CFD. The subject of the edit warring has involved the same Tipperary hurlers. Having been thwarted in the above decision, he has sought to have his own way by "the back door"; he has changed the hurlers from Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary to Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary. I assume that this is passive aggressive for a perceived slight to Tipperary GAA. On many of the edit reasons it was pointed out to him that the players status as members of "Tipperary GAA" was unaffected; all that was changing was their geographic location (i.e. from County Tipperary to the more accurate county of North Tipperary). This made no difference to him as the core of his resistance has been his obdurate refusal to acknowledge that there is any difference between the GAA governing body known as "Tipperary GAA" and the administrative county known as "County Tipperary". The nub of the CFD decision is that there is indeed a difference that needs to be disambiguated by the addition of the suffix "GAA". Brocach simply refuses to accept this decision, and in a fit of pique has rampaged through "Sportspeople from North Tipperary". :I am not so much concerned to have the block lifted as to protect the categories and their children from further wanton disruption. I should also advise that he has been joined in the destruction derby by User:Finnegas. What Brocach failed to do, Finnegas has done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Interesting reading it may be, but WP:NOTTHEM still applies. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• That's one of the more interesting unblock requests I've read (I don't mean that sarcastically). Without fully understanding the history and the complexity of the issues, my initial reaction is that a better course of conduct would have been to take the problem to WP:ANI or WP:AN (depending on the action you requested), where it could have been sorted out. It doesn't seem to me that edit-warring was justified. That said, if there's someone whom you would like me to notify to make sure your comments are read, please let me know, and I will do so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's very considerate of you. If you could notify User:The Banner please. And take a look at his comments on the article Talk:Paudie Butler which are a mirror of my comments above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've notified The Banner for you. At this point, I'm not interested in looking at the comments on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that the title get you interested: What on earth are you fighting over?. To my opinion, this was one of the silliest editswars I have ever seen. With Brocach screaming for discussion on the talkpage, but not posting a letter. And in the mean time he went on changing a proper link for a redirect, and changing a valid category in a wrong one. He seemed to go bananas from the phrase "North Tipperary". Brocach should be lucky with only 48 hours block, but Laurel Lodged broke the rules too. In his case, 48 hours seem a bit harsh but lifting the block entirely is a bit too much too. The Banner talk 00:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, Laurel Lodged has fallen victim to the antics of a vandal on the rampage. The Banner talk 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was preparing a decline rationale to this request before User:The Banner posted their message. If there are circumstances that would qualify as mitigating the edit warring I would like to see diffs showing vandalism being reverted. Tiderolls 02:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not sure how to do "diffs". But I can point you to the revision history of Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers which is a synthesis of all the warring. It shows two development paths. 1 Brocach's addition of the "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary" category. My explanation was that it was already a member of "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary" which was a child of the cat "County Tipperary". As an aside, I should point out that this is a typical arrangement of the Category:County Tipperary tree structure: 1 cat each for NT and for ST report to the parent cat of Tipp. That is, no article reports to both NT and Tipp. Anyway, Brocach refused to accept this tree structure and continued to revert. 2 I realised that the cat "Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers" should not even be in the cat "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary". This moment of clarity came to me when I reviewed the article on Tony Reddin who was born in County Galway (i.e. he is from Galway) but who played hurling for his club Lorrha-Dorrha GAA which is governed by Tipperary GAA. So while it is right and proper that he be a member of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers, it is not right that he be a member of "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary"; instead he is correctly listed as a member of "Sportspeopple from County Galway". Moving from the particular to the general, I deduced that one may not assume that just because a person is a member of a GAA club that happens to be in Tipperary that all members of of that club must necessarily be from Tipperary. I wrote this in the edit commentary as "a club is not a person". Again Brocach refused to acknowedge this logic and continued to revert. It was my feeling that he would have refused to change his opinion in a talk page despite protesting loudly that it should be discussed. The war was the only effective means at my disposal to prevent wide-scale vandalism by Brocach. I doubt that the block will make him any more contrite and continue to ask for protection for the pages affected once the block is lifted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My reaction to Laurel's detailed analysis is the same as it was before. They may be right, but on its face it requires input from other editors and additional discussion to determine how best to resolve the situation. Instinctively and even literally, I don't see how any of this qualifies as vandalism. And without being able to label it as vandalism, the argument that edit-warring is the only way to deal with it falls apart.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I will not apeal this decision any further. I entirely agree that "it requires input from other editors and additional discussion to determine how best to resolve the situation" and am happy to give it the space in which this can happen. However, I must reiterate that it is my honest assessment based on experience of user Brocach and his ilk that once the block is lifted that lip service will be paid to the debate while the wholescale revertions continue to lay waste to at least 3 schemas. I may be wrong but I fear not. So as my final word on the matter, may I again earnestly plead for protection to Category:Sportspeople from County Tipperary, Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary, Category:Sportspeople from South Tipperary, Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers, Category:Loughmore-Castleiney hurlers and Category:Lorrha-Dorrha hurlers. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the request. Do you really want to protect the categories from being edited, or do you want to prevent editors from adding articles to the categories? The former makes no sense as there's been no recent disruptive editing of the cats (I only checked the first few), and I don't know how you do the latter (perhaps it's something I'm unaware of?).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps the purpose would be best achieved by simply imposing a topic ban on all GAA related articles on both of us until a decision one way or the other had been reached at a neutral forum like WikiProject:Gaelic games or WikiProject:Ireland? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be one way of at least beginning to address the issues. You could propose it at WP:AN after your block expires. That'd be a fun way to resume editing after a block. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban would certainly help. What I doubt is who is eligible for the topic ban, so I guess the impact should be wide spread among editors. This whole story started off long ago, so a decisive action is necessary to stop all this drama. It is now going on for about a year and has strong ties to the Northern Ireland drama, as the misery started, as far as I noticed, around Derry/Derry GAA/County Londonderry. The Banner talk 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Sorry, had to do it.
WP:AN/I: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Brocach ignoring discussions and blocks for POV-pushing: time for topic ban. The Banner talk 02:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand completely. Don't sweat it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Under the same heading, my counter-proposal that you be topic-banned from GAA articles for a couple of months. Brocach (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I've left a comment in this discussion. It must surely be clear to you all by now that edit-warring, multiple moves/requested moves and shouting matches on WP:IE, WP:IMOS, WikiProject Gaelic games and AN/I is not solving anything. I urge the three of you – Brocach, The Banner and Laurel Lodged – to put your heads together and take your dispute to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and in the meantime declare a cease-fire and stop hitting your heads off a brick wall. I am posting the identical message to each of you. Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever about the other two, I fear you are wasting your time with this one - LL *enjoys* being the enfant terrible of the Ireland-related Misplaced Pages. Hohenloh 14:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

If topic-bans are ever seriously considered, I want to be able to answer the question "how have you attempted to resolve the issue with this user?" That doesn't mean I wasn't sincere, but equally it doesn't mean I was particularly hopeful. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ban proposal

• FYI As someone who has previously proposed a topic ban on Laurel Lodged, you may wish to support the proposal here. Brocach (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Equally, of course, you may wish to oppose. I am only drawing your attention to the discussion. Brocach (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop

We've 6 discussions on going if can you stop moving pages while this on going ? Gnevin (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Censorship of Brocach's talk page by, er, Brocach

I reserve this section for juicy examples of Brocach's many attempts to hide unsavory comments on his talkpage. Some are pleading, some (mine included) are sarcastic; all are interesting for having been consored by Brocach. For example:

1. "After noticing Scolaire's comments at WP:ANI from 23:15 on 28 January 2013 and Laurel Lodge's comments at the same page from twenty minutes later, I looked at some of your comments on user talk pages. Comments such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are good examples of the sort of canvassing prohibited by our canvassing standards. As such, I suggest that you stop notifying people of discussions or that you begin notifying them in a neutral, nonpartisan manner; future canvassing will possibly result in a block for disruptive editing. Nyttend"
2. Could you please stop the canvassing? Thanks. The Banner User talk:The Banner
3. "Have you been canvassing? If so, you should stop it. It's not wiki etiquette." User:Laurel Lodged
4. "For some background: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. Personally, I think mr. Brocach escaped very lightly with a block of 48 hours as he was acting as a vandal on the rampage, damaging lots of articles of Tipperary hurlers. There is no valid reason to move those articles from a correct category to a wrong category nor is there a valid reason to replace proper links to redirects. The Banner
5. "Increasing signs of infirmity. I'm concerned that the addition to your talk page of large bold letters in the lead is a sign of nascent myopia. When added to your well documented hearing difficulties, should the two be taken as a sign of your increasing infirmity? Perhaps you've been over-working lately, reverting all those articles. Take some time out, relax, you'll feel the better of it." User:Laurel Lodged
6. "I know you don't want to hear this... but don't move articles while the discussion is still running. I have reverted all your moves that I could revert. Everything is still under discussion so it should not be moved. Don't ignore discussion! What are you up to? Your moves are, to put it mildly, disruptive and your attitude of WP:ILLDOITMYWAYNOMATTERWHATTHECOMMUNITYWANTS is highly annoying. Don't be surprised when this behaviour brings you to AN/I! The Banner

Open a discussion at WT:GAA

I believe the community has run out of patience with all the renaming, etc. Although I requested a Topic Ban, I'm happy - to a point - that it didn't come to that for you. I genuinely believe you're acting in good faith, but here's the thing you're going to find hard to believe. The most difficult WP policy/rule you need to get your head around is that of consensus, not "facts" or "truth" or whatever (although they generally are all related). You should now open a discussion at WT:GAA (as has been strongly suggested by an admin at AN/I) and cease from any more renaming or county-related editing (or face a block) until the matter has been resolved. --HighKing (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we both know that with the people who usually patrol the barren desert that is WP:GAA that the outcome of any such "discussion" would be a foregone conclusion. The merits or demerits of any proposal would be immaterial; unless it conformed to a pre-ordained national agenda, it's wrong. But you're right in one respect: only in neutral venues such as WP:CFD has it been possible to obtain a modicum of justice on occasion. Not that I wish to play the martyr, but it does speak volumes for the level of intellectual rigour on the Ireland forums. "What though the field be lost...." Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If Brocach and Finnegas will agree to self-impossed ban on all GAA related articles for a period of 2 months, then I will too. If not, let the ANI case continue (on the arguments hopefully, not the personalities). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are following the discussions at AN/I but in case you have lost it in the detail, I have asked all parties to desist, immediately, from any renaming or recategorising of articles. This applies even to correcting an article that has been amended to the 'wrong' version. The AN/I thread has grown to astonishing length with very little interest from anyone except those already engaged in the dispute. Nevertheless I will block anyone who makes further changes to these categories before a true consensus is reached, ideally at WT:GAA but frankly any venue will do! Kim Dent-Brown 00:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)