| Revision as of 02:08, 15 March 2024 edit91.125.54.186 (talk) // Archived //Tags: Manual revert Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:33, 18 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,824 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 21) (bot | ||
| (97 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) | |||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| * ] |age=30 |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} | * ] |age=30 |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} | ||
| == Irish templates proposed for deletion == | |||
| Two templates are being proposed for deletion: | |||
| == Articles on March 2024 referendums and amendment bills == | |||
| * {{tl|Hiberno-English}} | |||
| Each bill put to a referendum has its own article. We also have pages for dates on which there is more than one referendum. See, for example, ], with the ] (marriage equality) and the ] (age of eligibility for president). | |||
| * {{tl|Use Hiberno-English}} | |||
| '''Discussion:''' ] | |||
| Should we be following that approach with the ] (month included in the title because of the scheduled, if not finalised, referendum on the patent court in June)? In that way, keeping detail on the wording and campaigns on the separate pages of ] and ]. On the other hand, given how much the campaigns will have in common, it might make sense to give more of the details on the campaign and support for or opposition to the two proposals on the referendums article, rather than the separate amendment articles. Previous cases where there were two or more on related topics, such as ] or ] give guidance, although needn't determine the approach. | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) 11:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| {{u|Bogger}}, {{u|Ccferrie}}, {{u|Spideog}} and {{u|Spleodrach}}, who have made substantive contributions to the referendums article, might have a view one way or the other. Just seems like the kind of thing to consider at the start of the formal campaign. ] (]) 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Embarrassing == | |||
| :Consistency, taking its cue from an established pattern, can be valuable or, ], "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". | |||
| :My initial instinct is to cover the referendums in one article, with suitable redirects pointing to it, because they both deal with related questions: What is a family, and what is a woman's role at home and at work? | |||
| :For that matter, the three articles ], ], and ] should also be merged (with suitable redirects) since those three referendums, held on the same day, were about the same topic of abortion. | |||
| :I will revisit the question after I have time to pore over the articles and the question raised more carefully. ] (]) 20:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd be happy to have the single article ], splitting in the future only if the campaigns diverge in terms of coverage, notability, campaign groups etc. -] (]) 21:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: And I'd also support a single article unless strong reasons for more emerge. And further, I'd support merging those on the 12-14th Amendments; I never did see the logic of separate articles for those, three wholly interlinked questions. ] (]) 00:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also agreed, a single article makes sense. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The lack of sources in ] is embarrassing after 15 long years. Please help this prodigal article get fixed. ] (]) 15:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Great to see a consensus, and though I had started moving in the other direction with my edits, it makes a lot of sense. Even if there is any divergence in the result or if there are some organisations calling for a split vote, it will be useful to show this together on one page. Similarly, the same with the 1992 votes, that there was a No/Yes/Yes from many groups, as well as No/No/No from others, is a useful comparison, in a way that a divergence between marriage equality and the presidential age is only trivial. ] (]) 06:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move at ] == | |||
| :I would agree with the single article approach for the campaign. To date all the parties and civil society groups that have declared a position on the referendums are supporting both and there could be a lot of repetition if we have two separate articles. Having said that, when it gets to documenting the results, two separate articles might be more appropriate. ] (]) 09:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''when it gets to documenting the results, two separate articles might be more appropriate'' | |||
| ::There is no need for separate articles for reporting results given the well-established pattern of numerous past constitutional amendment articles reporting multiple results in one article, viz: in ], ], ], ], | |||
| ::], ] (four results in one article), ], ], and ]. ] (]) 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ===1968 and 1992 mergers=== | |||
| Following this discussion, I've proposed that we merge the two previous occasions we've had multiple ballots on closely related topics. | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Working on combined articles for these (if agreed) should inform how we handle the results section of a combined article for the upcoming votes. ] (]) 11:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{u|Spideog}}, {{u|Bogger}}, {{u|Scolaire}}, {{u|SeoR}}, {{u|Bastun}}, {{u|Ccferrie}} or {{u|Spleodrach}}, any thoughts on the two proposals above (corrected after I’d accidentally mixed them up!) ] (]) 15:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks. I've thought about it further, and for these two cases, firmly support mergers. ] (]) 00:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::FWIW, the discussion has continued on ], and I think it is converging towards no consensus. ] (]) 13:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This is another town land stub that’s been unsourced for 15 years. Can we please find and add sources? ] (]) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| '''Support merges''': The dispersal of merger discussions across multiple article talk pages and here in WikiProject Ireland is exasperating. I suggest we centralise the discussions in one location (I prefer this location) and place notices in any relevant talk pages directing interested parties here. | |||
| == Discussion at ] == | |||
| It only struck me yesterday that Misplaced Pages treatment of Irish constitutional amendments is illogically split over two or more articles, for example, we have (Article 1) ] and then we have three more articles: (Article 2) ], (Article 3) ], and (Article 4) ]. This scattered treatment is offensive. The four articles should be merged into one, with redirects pointing to that one article. | |||
| ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 14:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| If I was dictator for a day like Donald Trump's fantasy for next January, I would go on a wholesale merging binge to impose order and consistency on the mess collected in ]. I don't know why it became a pattern to have, for example, ] plus ] and ]. The three articles should be one because atomising the discussion is both disorderly and illogical which either sends the reader to three different places for one event or risks the reader missing part of the treatment of the occasion. There is also the problem of repetition between articles. | |||
| I have read a few of these articles in the past without realising until yesterday that by reading ] I could easily not recognise that there are two related articles: ] and ]. | |||
| Even if two amendments voted on, on the same day, are not related in content they are nevertheless contemporaneous events and there is obvious logic in combining them to tidy this unnecessary mess which risks making related material invisible to an unwary reader. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :By "merge the discussions we're having" I mean place notices on all relevant {{tq|constitutional amendment}} and {{tq|referendum}} Talk pages saying that centralised discussion is taking place (here) at ]. ] (]) 16:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can understand your exasperation at the duplication! Even in the meantime, I had crafted a separate response over on ] within the next half hour! My apologies for this dispersal. | |||
| ::The way I see it, it makes sense to have a separate article for ], with an overview of the ] and the ] as marriage equality and the age of eligibility for election to the office of president were entirely separate subjects; someone who wants to know the background to the relatively obscure proposal to amend the age of eligibility would get lost in the material on marriage equality. Or a reader studying the abolition of the death penalty by country could get lost in the ] in the debate on the Nice Treaty if they were all combined. It's different for the 1968, November 1992, and March 2024 referendums, as in each case, these were proposals on related questions, proposed together, debated together. I had opened separate merger discussions even there though, someone might have a subtle case of Yes for merger in 1968 for No in 1992. ] (]) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I recognise your argument about two different topics being voted on in one day but that is easily dealt with in one article such as {{tq|2029 Irish constitutional referendums}} within which are two sections: {{tq|Amendment to permit strangling of babies at birth}} and {{tq|Amendment to prohibit fake tans}}. The results of each vote would appear in the appropriate sections within the article. | |||
| :::Even if there is only one amendment being voted on, it makes no sense to have two articles: {{tq|2029 Irish constitutional referendum}} and {{tq|Amendment to permit strangling}}. The lead paragraph would say two (or more) issues were voted on in the 2029 referendum then the reader could browse whichever section is of interest. This would tame the messy subject atomisation/fragmentation and sprawl and cure the problem of repetition between articles. ] (]) 17:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::We have enough examples that we don't need to consider such hypothetical referendums. Where there's one referendum held on the day, e.g. ], there's only one article. Although a short article, we don't and shouldn't merge that with ] held on the same day. The same should go for other polls held on the same day on quite distinct topics. I've considered quite a few ] and ] on different topics of Irish politics, and the question for me is primarily what would be clearer for the readers. I can't see what benefit there would be to any reader of a single article on the referendums on the ] and the ]. There is a small benefit, partly from disambiguating, of ], with a very short summary of them. However, I do think that in the three specific cases of 1968, November 1992, and the current ones, it's clearer and more informative to the readers for the distinct referendums on the same broad subject debated in the public sphere together to be treated on a single page. ] (]) 06:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I found this when working on ] the February drive to eliminate/reduce the backlog of unreferenced articles. I've added a single source, ''PeakVisor'', not 100% sure of its reliability, which has a list of 41 summits. The Misplaced Pages list is a set of names, some linked, many not linked, with no further information or sources. I contemplated taking it to AfD, but sourced it and moved on, changing the template from {{tl|unreferenced}} to {{tl|refimprove}}. | |||
| the website (aka Database of British and Irish Hills), which I think is a ], includes Irish mountains like , but its search function doesn't seem to be working today. Some of the smaller lumps and bumps may not be included in it anyway. (Like the 36m , the smallest listed in PeakVisor.) | |||
| Someone with access to good sources (a book, perhaps?) on Irish hills and mountains might like to work this up into a more useful list, and to check that the list in {{tl|Mountains and hills of County Dublin}} matches the list in the article. | |||
| Over to you. ]] 12:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I note that the article's creator, {{u|Spideog}}, is still an active project contributor. And could perhaps review/assist. Otherwise, to my mind and if referencing of the standalone article is an issue, the title could potentially be retargeted to ]. ] (]) 13:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've mentioned this at ] ]] 13:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I have made a good beginning by researching and citing a reliable source to cover the deficiencies. It should be easy to find more; it's just a question of finding time, which I will do. ] (]) 05:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most of the mountains and hills now have citations, with just a handful of stragglers to be completed. ] (]) 16:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] I've now managed to get a "County Dublin" list from Hill Bagging / DBIH, and it lists 16 - 3 of which weren't in your list. One is an alternative name, and I've added a note at the bottom about the other two. | |||
| :::What criterion did you use for your list of 46? It would be useful to add a note to the list to explain it. Thanks. | |||
| :::Ah, I've just noticed that ] is listed, so Knockbrack is included ... will tweak the footnote. ]] 23:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Thank you, PamD. I created the list 13½ years ago so I can't remember my source(s) for the entries or what criteria I may have used. One or two other editors added a few peaks, but most of it is my work. | |||
| ::::I do recall that when compiling ] in 2010 I used a physical map (''Map of Ireland No. 923; 1998. Michelin Tyre PLC'') and also "circumnavigated" the entire Irish coast using a very detailed government Ordnance Survey map, online, but I have no memory of researching the uplands of Dublin. ] (]) 23:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ah well, it's a much better sourced list now than it was a few days ago, so thank you for upgrading it! This ] project is leading me off into all sorts of tangents, but I'm here to enjoy editing and be useful, rather than to climb up the leaderboard of that project. ]] 23:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Town v Village == | |||
| Note that ] are ongoing again. While raised at ] and ], as multiple IPs (within the same range) are involved, other editors might wish to verify whether any related changes are consistent with the applicable sources. ] (]) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Interesting. Is this the person, I wonder, who edited Caherciveen one way, and later, in pique, the opposite way… Will cast an eye anyway. There may be issues with this classification worth further debate, but not now, and random IP edits definitely don’t help. ] (]) 23:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Department of Agriculture & Technical Instruction, Dublin, 1909 == | |||
| Please see ] and see if you can identify any of the personalities depicted, or assist with transcription of the comments. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == FA review: Edward I, Lord of Ireland == | |||
| I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!--Template:FARMessage--> ] ] 21:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If you're going to pretend that ] is actually titled "Edward I, Lord of Ireland", don't expect to be taken seriously. ] (]) 10:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: Meow! The old wounds are the tastiest, eh? :D :D :D ;-) ] (]) 09:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:33, 18 December 2024
|
Irish Wikipedians' notice board | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home
Irish Wikipedians' related news |
Discussion
Ireland related discussion (at WikiProject Ireland). |
Active Users
Active Irish Users |
WikiProjects
Irish WikiProjects |
Stubs
Major Irish stubs |
Peer review
Articles on Peer review |
FA
Articles on FA review |
FA Drive
Articles under consideration for FA drive |
 FA |  A |  GA | B | C | Start | Stub | FL | List | Category | Disambig | Draft | File | Portal | Project | Redirect | Template | NA | ??? | Total |
| 69 | 0 | 246 | 1,518 | 5,688 | 30,704 | 26,969 | 8 | 3,419 | 2,418 | 2 | 33 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 1,003 | 1,699 | 281 | 2 | 74,070 |
 | WikiProject Ireland was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on March 2010. |
Irish templates proposed for deletion
Two templates are being proposed for deletion:
- {{Hiberno-English}}
- {{Use Hiberno-English}}
Discussion: Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Template:Hiberno-English
Spideog (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Embarrassing
The lack of sources in Southern Uí Néill is embarrassing after 15 long years. Please help this prodigal article get fixed. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Quinn brothers' killings#Requested move 9 December 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Quinn brothers' killings#Requested move 9 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Drumbess
This is another town land stub that’s been unsourced for 15 years. Can we please find and add sources? Bearian (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Plastic Paddy#"refugees" / "genocide"
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Plastic Paddy#"refugees" / "genocide" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)