Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:35, 16 June 2009

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

• WT:IECOLL

Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland in articles

I have replied to a post by Blue-Haired Lawyer on the manual of style about use of Ireland/Republic of Ireland in articles. He/she made what I think were fairly common sense proposals and my reply was really just re-wording simpifing of them.

My rewriting of Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal is here:

Since there was no reply to Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, I've copied mine here to get some feedback. Obviously, more input than what is available here would be required to put these into the IMOS but since the contributors here represent a spectrum of opinion, I though it would be a good place get feedback. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think thats pretty fair in that ROI really does only need to be used when Northern Ireland is directly mentioned alongside it. There is one small thing I disagree on though. e.g. the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland". In my opinion it should be described in general as "the border between the United Kingdom and Ireland" as that conforms to a more international NPOV. Everything else is fine though.MITH 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a bad example for Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal too, but (to User:MITH) "Republic of Ireland" should also be used when the island is mentioned, not only when Northern Ireland is mentioned. ~Asarlaí 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if both the island and the state are mentioned then two things can be done. If it's a political sentence then island of Ireland should be the disambiguator and correct name of the sovereign state be used. If it the context is geography then ROI can be used.MITH 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good example of where ROI is needed. The opening sentence is ambiguous at present with the link to Republic of Ireland disguised by piping. Mooretwin (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. ~Asarlaí 23:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the article is perfectly clear.MITH 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "perfectly clear": it refers to Ireland, but links to Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"it refers to Ireland, but links to Republic of Ireland" Hmm. Strange that. Especially as somehow 95% of these links seem to do the exact same thing?MITH 23:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make? If the article in question said Republic of Ireland, the meaning would be clear. Currently the meaning is ambiguous, and the link to Republic of Ireland is unhelpfully disguised. Mooretwin (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The introduction mentions all three entities (ROI, NI, and the island), therefore Republic of Ireland should be used. Readers shouldn't keep having to click on links to find out what entity is being referred to. ~Asarlaí 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. I've made the edit. Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent rule of thumb: if the reader needs to click the link (or hover over it) to know which "Ireland" is being referred to then we need to use alternative wording. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article on the state currently has a good wording to that effect. It reads something like, "Ireland is a state in northwest Europe. It covers five sixths of the island of Ireland." Reads very well, is succinct and clear. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good proposal. I agree with it too. --HighKing (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. I guess we are not going to discuss where those instances are piped to? Fmph (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Consideration should be given to republic of Ireland, that is republic all in lowercase font. I'm not happy with uppercase, as it adds confusion. Readers are pretty smart, and can work that out. ''Tfz'' (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be of the opinion that we should use Ireland where possible. In the event that we can't then there is little to be gained from using republic of Ireland over the well-established Republic of Ireland, except to avoid using a capital that we might not like. That seems to part a little from NPOV IMHO. Whatever our opinion about Republic of Ireland, it exists and it is used. Avoiding it like that seems a bit "sneaky". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing 'sneaky' about using republic of Ireland. What's sneaky about it? The name of the state is Ireland, and I took a compromise position on my input here. My first option is Ireland. ''Tfz'' (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Republic should always be capitalised when writing Republic of Ireland. That is the state's official description as declared in the Republic of Ireland Act. ~Asarlaí 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your quite right, Republic of Ireland is the states official description, but not the name. Don't agree it should always be capatalised, as it would depend on context. In the meaning of the 1949 Act, I agree, it should be capatalised. Tfz 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a comment from your friendly moderator, I believe that this sets a good standard for how to reference the island, ROI, and No. Ireland within the body of articles, and should be part of the final result from this project. We still need to come back and address the names of the various articles that conflict at "Ireland", and potential effects on other article names, but this helps towards the complete solution. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can now formalize the establishment of a consensus for this approach, it would be a huge step forward. Or am I missing something? If not, could we poll the participants? --HighKing (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have created a diff to show the difference between the current IMOS and the proposed change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs) 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The example that the border should be described as being between "the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" never as being between "Ireland and Northern Ireland" was weak and controversial. I propose it should be changed to something like an increased number of shoppers to Newry should be described as coming from the Republic of Ireland, not Ireland, when referring to the state. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Much of this confusion is just a myth, and the danger is more confusion. The border is generally known as the Irish border. Why choose neologisms, especially invented for WP. "Republic of Ireland" should be totally avoided for naming purposes. There is little excuse for not being able to rework wording to avoid that term. A much better option would be to rename the island to "island of Ireland", and work around that. I seriously think that Irish editors might be in danger of being overgenerous in what is conceded here to a 'particular' pov element, who resent the state using the name Ireland. Tfz 11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep that border bit is wrong. It was admitted that the example was a bad one. Another example should be given for the ROI/NI case as the border should actually be referred to as the United Kingdom - Ireland border.MITH 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the motives of many (if any) contributors here is any kind of resentment towards the name of the state.

BTW What neologisms have appeared during in this issue? What ones have been invented for Misplaced Pages? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's one Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border, Republic of Ireland being used for the name of Ireland is another. "I don't think that the motives of many (if any) contributors here is any kind of resentment towards the name of the state.", this has actually been 'said' by some of the editors involved in these discussions. Tfz 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither "Republic of Ireland" nor "United Kingdom" nor "border" are neologisms. Much less made up for Misplaced Pages. See here for examples.

What have contributors said? That they "resent" the state using the name "Ireland"? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this what you are looking for. RoI for name of Ireland is neologism in my book, Roi refers to a description of Ireland as a 'republic', as opposed to a 'monarchy'. It's akin naming UK as Monarchy of United Kingdom, instead of United Kingdom. Tfz 12:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And Irish Border gets the hits. Tfz 13:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"I think this what you are looking for." It is identical to this - and in both case the match is for "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border".

There is only one return for Monarchy of United Kingdom". It is and index entry for "monarchy, of United Kingdom".

"Irish border" is the common name. I don't know why the article isn't located there. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should be renamed "Irish border". There shouldn't be any confusion since it's the only (international) border in Ireland. ~Asarlaí 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

When referring to the population of "Ireland" but in meaning the republic, it is always 100% correct to say republic but never 100% correct to say that the republics population count is that of Ireland, in the choice between 100% or less accuracy 100% should always be taken, no? Saying that the state in the south will have the full title (Ireland) in all counts is not always right. If there were no acceptable term of distinction it would be a dilemma but there is... Republic of Ireland, official description of the state People may be of the opinion that Ireland "should be used as much as possible" but such as the case that "population of Republic of Ireland is 3.5 million" and "population of Ireland is 5 million", one should do anything possible to clarify, yes? It is not so much the case to decide which is more important, politically correct or most often used. It is the case to decide when and how to make the distinction between these two different entities. Maintaining only one requires the disposal or obscurity of the other. When describing geographical location, the terms are ambiguous, either can be used. When describing population, infastructure and politics, Ireland can only be 100% correct in reference to the whole island. Use of the term Republic of Ireland can be correct 100% of the time. ~ R.T.G 17:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there agreement on the proposal to alter IMOS as mentioned above? If not, why not? If this is the thing stopping us from moving forward then we need to be clear whether there are any issues. As I read it, there aren't many, bar sorting out how it applies to one or two one off circumstances such as Cork below.MITH 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Under whose authority is consensus being sought? Have users been notified? When were we asked to agree or otherwise? Who is entitled to make this decision? What process is in place? Mooretwin (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(entering comment chronologically) I support rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's rewrite of Blue-Haired Lawyer's proposal, as stated at the beginning of the section.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Two further points are needed to say that

• where titles of potentially-ambiguous articles such as "Flag of Ireland" used "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland", the lede needs to explain that the (in this case) flag is the flag of the Republic of Ireland, and not that of Ireland (the island).
• where there is any risk of ambiguity, or of readers being misled, Republic of Ireland should be used, e.g. "RTE One is the oldest television station in Ireland" (which is quite untrue). Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Position argument summaries

Participants:

• SarekOfVulcan (talk)
• rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá)
• MITH
• Bastun
• Tfz

Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because Ireland is the state's common name.

Counter argument: Not all articles on states are located at their common name (e.g. China)

Summary: While not all articles on states are located at their common name, almost all are. If not they are located at their official names.

Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because that is the state's official name.

Counter argument: (1) Most articles on states on Misplaced Pages do not appear at the official name of the state (e.g. France vs. French Republic); (2) The state's official name is ambiguous as it is also the name of Ireland, the island.

Summary: Most articles on states do not appear at the official name of that state instead they appear at their common names. Most states' names are not ambiguous.

Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland (state) because the Irish Constitution refers to it as a State.

Counter argument: Some people think that a state is a subset of a country.

Summary: Using Ireland (state) could mislead readers as to the state of the state.

Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland (country) because country is the common word for a sovereign state.

Counter argument: Ireland-the-island is also commonly called a country, there may be confusion between the two.

Summary: The entire island of Ireland and the state of Ireland can be considered countries by different interest groups.

Argument: The island article should be located at Ireland because the island named Ireland goes back much further than the state.

Counter argument: Using Ireland for the island prevents the current state from having an article under its Constitutionally-defined name and common name.

Summary: Both the island and the sovereign state have justifiable reasons to using the title "Ireland".

Argument: The current Ireland article should be located at Ireland because it is the primary topic. It is about more than just the island in a geographic sense.

Counter argument: Expanding a geographic article more to include non geographic information leans towards satisfying a certain POV as there is no identifiable obvious primary topic.

Summary: Some editors see the island as the primary topic, while others apply it to the sovereign state.

Argument: The article on the state must be moved from Republic of Ireland because Republic of Ireland is not the official name or most common name of the state of the state.

Counter argument: (1) Nearly all articles on states on Misplaced Pages are located at a title that is not the official name of the state (e.g. Germany not Federal Republic of Germany, Australia not Commonwealth of Australia). (2) There is no such obligation to move any one of these articles just because it is at the title that is not the name of the state. (3) The article cannot be moved to Ireland, because that is the name of the island, and Republic of Ireland is the official description and a commonly-used alternative name.

Summary: Republic of Ireland is a once off case. Articles are usually located at their common names and if not, they are located at their official names instead. In the Republic of Ireland's case neither is the case.

Argument: The title should be away from Republic of Ireland, because while use of the term Republic of Ireland could be declared as relatively common, its use is erroneous and is mostly done by the British media who have not changed their practices since the Belfast Agreement.

Counter argument: The phrase is used by books, academic journals and TV, radio and press in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide. There is nothing unusual about the of either Republic of Ireland or Ireland to refer to the state by the British press. Neither is it "erroneous" - it is not erroneous to call France France instead of the French Republic. The Belfast Agreement was a wide ranging agreement between two states: neither Misplaced Pages nor the press is bound by it.

Summary: While some believe its use to be erroneous, others believe that it is a perfectly correct term to use.

Argument: While the term Republic of Ireland was invented by the Irish Government, the Irish Taoiseach who passed it, John Costello made it clear it was not to be used as a name (here or here). Use of the term only spread as the British government refused to recognise the constitutional name of the country making ROI more common in the UK until 1998.

Counter argument: Republic of Ireland is commonly used by books, academic journals, TV, radio and print media in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide. It is not certain how Costello intend it to be used, but, whatever his intentions, it has widespread use as name for the state today.

Summary: While officially not meant to be a name, the description Republic of Ireland is sometimes used by people instead of its official and common name in circumstances where context is not clear.

Argument: The title Republic of Ireland may suggest to a reader that it is the name of the country, as every other country article either uses either an official name or the most common short form name; of which Republic of Ireland is neither.

Counter argument: Republic of Ireland is a common name for the country in question. Whether it is shorter or longer than the official name is of no consequence. The opening line of the lede and/or a hatnote can explain to the reader that the "official name" is Ireland.

Summary:

Argument: The title should remain at Republic of Ireland because it is commonly used by government, media and the populace whenever necessary to disambiguate between the state and the island, and the island article is already at Ireland.

Counter argument: Republic of Ireland is not the state's name nor is it the most common name, nor is it commonly used by government media and populace when disambiguation is not necessary. Also the location of the island article (currently at Ireland) is also subject to change under this process.

Summary: Republic of Ireland is usually only used when dismbiguation is necessary.

Argument: Misplaced Pages is supposed to educate and enlighten readers, and not confuse. A pretence by Misplaced Pages that 'Republic of Ireland' is the name of the state has no educational value whatsoever.

Counter argument: Some editors claim that readers might not be able to understand the complexity of one of two states on an island assuming the name of the entire island.

Summary:

Argument: The state article should be located at Ireland because the state owns 85% of the island.

Counter argument: The state does not control or claim 100% of the land surface of the island. The remaining 15% is Northern Ireland.

Summary: Area covered by Northern Ireland or the republic has nothing to with any potential article names on Misplaced Pages.

Argument: There is clearly a need to disambiguate between the island and the state, and use of the real-world name of the island and the real-world official description of the state allows us to do so without use of artifical disambiguators such as , , , etc.

Counter argument: It is better to change to our own article names by consensus or an agreed process.

Summary: We can use either real-world article titles or come up with our own.

Proposal to move forwards

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This proposal failed to achieve moderator support within the alloted timescale

The general opinion I'm getting from the comments above and on the arbitration amendment request that, although some users might like the Arbitration Committee to choose a particular choice of article title, most users believe that it is highly unlikely that the ArbCom will do this as doing so would be tantamount to settling a content dispute, something they have traditionally been loathe to become involved with.

It also seems that the moderators do not propose to force a particular means of settling this dispute on us. Originally I thought that this was a failing by the moderators, but after consideration I no longer think that. I expect that the moderators feel that by not endorsing one scheme over another they remain perceived as less biased. On reflection, I think this is beneficial.

Therefore we are left having to find a way of solving this ourselves. What I propose here is, I hope, the start of that process. It is not a specific proposal on how the articles should be named, nor is it even a specific proposal on how to decide that; instead it is an outline of how the whole process should work, and a mechanism by which we chose the way forward. It also seeks to establish ground rules and the start of a time line. What I am suggesting below may sound unnecessarily bureaucratic, however I don't believe it actually is. Partly the verbiage is because I have tried to spell out in detail how this should operate in an effort to avoid subsequent wikilawyering.

Ground rules (proposal)

Accepting this proposal

1. Users should indicate below whether they support or oppose this proposal.
   1. IP addresses may not participate in this poll.
   2. Users may change their vote at any point up to the close of the poll.
2. This poll closes at 23:59 (UTC) on the evening of Sunday 14th June. After the poll has closed, this proposal is deemed to have succeeded if:
   1. more users vote to support than vote against it; and
   2. at least two moderators vote in favour of it, and none vote against it.
3. Any discussion of this should be made in the relevant section.
   1. Comments interspersed with the votes may be deleted by any user.
   2. As a corollary, a vote to accept this proposal cannot be conditional on a particular amendment.
4. In addition to voting, users may propose amendments to these basic ground rules, an example of which is given below.
   1. Amendments must be proposed no later than 23:59 (UTC) on the evening of Thursday 11th June and not altered after this date.
   2. Amendments are decided by vote and are subject to the same rules as the main vote, including the closing date.
   3. As an exception, there is no requirement for any moderators to endorse or not oppose any amendment for them to take effect.
5. In the event of several seemingly-incompatible amendments being accepted, the moderators shall, at their sole discretion, resolve the incompatibility; they may do this in any manner, including (but not limited to):
   1. by deeming each of the incompatible amendments to have failed;
   2. by only accepting the amendment with the most endorsements;
   3. by synthesising a combined amendment combining the key properties of all the seemingly-incompatible amendments.
6. The moderators' decision (whether by unanimity, majority, or unopposed unilateral action) can only be overruled by the moderators themselves, or by the Arbitration Committee.
7. If this proposal has been endorsed, any successful amendments shall be applied to these ground rules and the result published here.

Selecting an on-going process

1. Any user may propose a process by which we decide how to select the names of the articles.
   1. A user may not propose more than one process.
   2. All processes must be proposed by 23:59 (UTC) on Wednesday 17 June, and not modified after this date.
   3. Proposals may be made before the adoption of these ground rules (on 14 June).
2. A user may abandon a proposed process in which case it shall be removed from the poll unless another proposer can be found.
3. The rules above regarding comments and protracted discussion apply here too.
4. A process is only deemed admissible if, in sole opinion of the moderators:
   1. it is not unduly biased towards any particular outcome (with that the status quo may be prefered in the event of a tie break);
   2. it must clearly set out how the whole remainder of the process will work, including setting out a time scale for the process; and
   3. it should yield a result no later than 1 Dec 2009, preferably earlier;
5. Processes may choose to address a wider range of issues than simply the names of the two Ireland articles.
   1. However it should be noted that the Irish Collaboration Wikiproject only has a ArbCom mandate to make a binding decision on the names of those two articles.
6. The process to be adopted will be determined by single transferable vote, with each user ranking the possible proposals in order.
   1. Users may choose to only rank their top few proposals, and not need to rank every proposal; there is no way of choosing a 'worst' choice without ranking all other proposals.
   2. IP addresses may not participate in this poll.
   3. Users may change their vote at any point up to the close of the poll.
7. The moderators' decision (whether by unanimity, majority, or unopposed unilateral action) can only be overruled by the moderators themselves, or by the Arbitration Committee.

—ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support / Oppose

Poll closes at 23:59 (UTC) on Fri 12 Jun. Comments made in this section may be deleted by any user

1. Support —ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support -Fmph (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support -GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support -Bastun 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support --HighKing (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
6. 'Support --Snowded 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Daicaregos (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Support -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - -- Evertype·✆ 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of ground rules

Any thoughts? —ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were !voting on whether we should accept the "ground rules" or not, and not subject to them already? Anyway, here are the reasons I gave on why I opposed the IP proposal above: "(As a former long-term IP and writer of WP:HUMAN) If this is to be a vote then IP votes should not be counted in the result, however they should be able to !vote and contribute to discussion at the same level as everyone else." --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would it take until December to have an outcome! This process has already been going on for months. Any way, nothing new is proposed above. The statement process has already taken place. The arguments have been put. What was needed was a decision. December 2009! Is this process a ruse!!! I think so. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We're getting some leadership at long last, if it takes to December then thats how long it takes. --Snowded 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why wait until December? Well we're not necessarily. I hope it will be resolved well before that. 1 Dec 2009 is really more of a backstop than an actual deadline: a proposal that is likely to have everything fully resolved by August would be accepted under these ground rules, whereas a proposal that faffed around until sometime next year would be disqualified. The last thing I want is for editors in favour of the status quo to force a proposal through that will, literally, run for ever (e.g. a proposal that says let's wait until we have 100% agreement). But equally, I'd rather take a while to do things properly and not rule out wider consultation simply on grounds of time. December is a compromise between the two extremes. —ras52 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the "amendment" simply an example, rather than a specific proposal? Who is the proposer and why is everyone supporting or opposing it? Rockpocket 07:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was intended as an example, and as such I had deliberately chosen something that I thought there was broad consensus against. However I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to express support or opposition to it. At least that way we've thought about it before any future issues involving IPs come to a head. –ras52 (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As a supporter of the status quo, can I say 1) I resent the implication that supporters of the status quo would try and keep this going on indefinitely - I've sure I've argued previously that we need a final decision to stop the pro change people from continually bringing up move polls every couple of months! 2) 1st December is too far away. We've been at this particular process since last year. 31st July would be more preferable, 31st August probably more realistic. Bastun 11:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I apologise if I in any way implied that any specific pro-status quo user might choose to manipulate the process in this way. Perhaps there are users who would do that, and perhaps not; I'm certainly not suggesting that you or any other specific user would. The point of the deadline is to reassure users opposed to the status quo that the procedure cannot be railroaded in this manner.

On you second point, yes I agree that 1 Dec is too far away. I'm intending shortly to propose the process suggested above by BrownHairedGirl. Her process involves four stages: statement consolidation on problem 1, a vote on problem 1, statement consolidation on problem 2.1 or 2.2 (whichever is relevant following the previous step, and a vote on problem 2.1/2.2. My initial thoughts are that the statement consolidation steps should take a fortnight each, and the votes a week each. This would have the whole matter tied up by 3rd August.

However, others may have different opinions on how this should be resolved, and I wouldn't want to prevent someone from proposing a longer, slower process. That said, I shan't be voting for a process that drags out until 1 Dec unless there are very clear benefits to spending that long over it. 1 Dec is the point where we say: that's unquestionably too long—you're not even allowed to propose that.

But if you still feel I've got the back-stop date wrong, feel free to propose an amendment to change it. That's what's the amendment mechanism is for.

—ras52 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. If we could finally resolve this by 3rd August, that'd be great. I'm wondering, though, if you're aware of this proposal to amend the prior Arbcom ruling, and this poll which was recently moved to a subpage of this project? Bastun 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And of my objections to the completeness of that poll (see its Talk page)? -- Evertype·✆ 06:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Amendments (proposal)

Example amendment: Anonymous users

Although given as an example, if a proposer can be found, users may vote for/against this as with any other amendment..

Replace the rules barring anonymous users with: IP addresses may participate unless an administrator deems them to be a sock puppet of another account that has already voted.

1. Oppose —ras52 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support -Fmph (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose --FF3000 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Bastun 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose --Snowded 05:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Daicaregos (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose - BritishWatcher (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose - -- Evertype·✆ 06:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose --FF3000 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The poll itself (proposal)

First, I do able setting up some ground rules makes sense, and thus applaud the above effort.

As for the poll itself, reading Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Ireland article names community poll (this suggestion version), I don't think this will solve all the issues, or at least in the best manner.

I suggest that the poll we need will be a three question poll - all other issues should fall out of that: (DO NOT VOTE YET I'm only seeking input)

Question 1: Which of the following options should be used to name the island of Ireland, the nation-state of Ireland, and the disabmiguation part for "Ireland"?

a) Ireland for the island, Ireland (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, and the answer to Question 2 for the nation-state.

b) Ireland (island) for the island, Ireland for the disambiguation page, and the answer to Question 2 for the nation-state.

c) None of the above

Question 2: Which of the following should be used to name the nation-state of Ireland, presuming that Ireland is used either for the island or the disambiguation page and thus unavailable as an option?

a) Ireland (country)

b) Ireland (state)

c) Republic of Ireland

d) Ireland (sovereign nation)

e) (other possible choices?)

f) None of the above

Question 3: In articles relating to the nation-state of Ireland in which other uses of Ireland (such as the island, Northern Ireland, or the like) may be used or confused with the meaning of the world "Ireland", what term should be used to describe that nation-state? (This would apply to both article titles such as "Economy of (name)" and within the body of such articles.

a) country of Ireland

b) state of Ireland

c) Republic of Ireland

d) (other possible options?)

e) None of the above

These three questions, as best as I can tell from reading, are the core dispute, and smaller issues (such as the most recent discussion of when it's necessary to spell out the name of the nation-state of Ireland (per Q3) in articles) will fall out from that. This also reflects the fact that there is minimal to no consensus to have Ireland be the nation-state.

Please note if you have any other valid choices for Q2 or Q3, now's the time to voice them. This will be a straight-up poll; there will be discussion on a talk page but no need to discuss votes here.

If, for some reason, "None of the above" receives majority votes, then we'll need to come back here, but I think this poll (with announcements of it on WP:VPP, WP:CENT and elsewhere) will resolve 95% of the issues, the rest of sweeping the last bit of dust under the rug. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the poll itself

Can I just clarify, are you proposing this as one possible way forward per the Selecting an on-going process section (above)? Or are you using your position as a moderator to say that this is how it will be done? I've no problem with either, but it would be useful to clarify things. If you're doing the latter, then we can abandon what I started above as it no longer have a role. —ras52 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am asking, as a moderator, does this poll make sense as part of the on-going process. I am not saying this is the poll. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would add one more option to Question 1:

(c) Ireland for the nation-state, Ireland (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, and another option (Island of Ireland or Ireland (island)) for the island.

(d) None of the above

Fmph (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Understandably, that's the logical third choice, but in reviewing all pass input to this project, it's the one with the snowball's chance of passing (this is a moderator opinion to simplify matters). But this is why I've left a None of the Above option - if for some reason everyone involved here has misread the discussion and people really want this option, then ok, we can go back and discuss this. If others think the nation-state option as Ireland should be included before the poll, then it's possible. --MASEM (t) 16:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to use STV, then we shouldn't be presuming we know which options have a snowball's chance. IMHO, that will be most people 2nd choice, and will therefore end up as as the preferred option. Lets give people the choice, otherwise there's no point. We might as well ask the mods to make a decision. Fmph (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, that should then be an option, but I would have trouble justifying "Island of Ireland" as a renaming option for the island since I don't see any support for this; if we did include that, we'd basically need two more questions in the same manner as Q2 and Q3 for the nation-state. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Island of Ireland is used quite a lot, relatively speaking. Fmph (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't go for 'Ireland (country)' for the state's name as there are at least 700,000 people in Northern Ireland who claim that their country is Ireland, the whole island. That is why they are called Irish nationalists. I think, if anything, 'Ireland (country)' should be one of the options under Ireland, the island. Odd how it has not appeared given that even all the Protestant churches are based on an all-Ireland structure. 'Ireland (state)' is my preferred option for the state, and 'Ireland (country)' or 'Ireland (island)' for the whole country. Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @Masem: I probably didn't express my question very well. What I'm trying to establish is, are you suggesting this poll as one of the options in the Selecting an on-going process section above, or do you not wish to carry out the process I mentioned above? Clearly if one of the moderators doesn't wish the process I was proposing above to make place then it is not viable. That would strike me as a bit sad as it is the only suggestion that I've noticed that has received (so far) unanimous support. Nevertheless, as one of the moderators how you continue this is your call, but it would be nice to know. —ras52 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider it as a user-proposed option under #1 of the ground rules. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Question 3 should definitely be included, but I think it should be more detailed. Participants should be offered the same options, but the vote should be on rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal. ~Asarlaí 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be part of the cleanup after counting the results that I offer. The core of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal above is that there are set names for the nation-state, island, and other factors, and once those are set, it describes the appropriate choices when to use them in articles. The latter aspects are important to recognized but less critical to the issue of the naming scheme here. If there is dispute that rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's suggested scheme is inappropriate, then we can work some more, but for this core poll, which, as noted, is 95% of the issue, let's keep it focused on the basic goals of the collaboration to get that resolved. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1 December is a total joke. No decent reasons given why it would take until 1 December to decide the titles of 3 articles! Perhaps you should see my posting from months ago calling for an April or May deadline etc....1 December! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ps...who is the joker proposing "Ireland (soverign nation)" or looking for "other possible choices". Adding in options like that is simply pretending matters are more complicated then the are. The real choice is very simple:

1. Dab/IRL(island)/IRL (state) v

1. status quo.

Why the desire to throw out the months of "process" and pretend we are starting from scratch. The arguments have been well had and thrashed out. Lets get to a poll. Have the propsers even read the project page with its statements. Lets have a conclusion at the end of the month. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Superfopp that Q 3 needs to be thought about more. For example I'm not sure why "Economy of Ireland" could be considered ambiguous as geographical islands don't have economies (At the moment it's just a redirect). For actual ambiguous titles I thought that applying the state article title was the obvious solution. eg. History of Ireland (state) or whatever it turns out to be. Rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's proposal also needs to be brought in somewhere.MITH 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider Republic of Ireland used as the nation-state of Ireland as out of contention considering the overwhelming evidence which prevents its use. I would suggest that our policies of WP:V and in particular WP:NPOV would also prevent us using this option. I hope that helps move the discussion along. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please can we keep focused on how we are going to decide this rather than reiterating the arguments for and against specific choices? If the arguments are so clear-cut against a specific choice then let's assume good faith and assume that people won't vote for it. —ras52 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re.: "Please can we keep focused on how we are going to decide this rather than reiterating the arguments for and against specific choices?" - It will be decided by way of a poll - The arguments have already been had out. Agreed. Lets get on with a poll. Regards. Its:

1. Dab/IRL(island)/IRL (state) v

1. status quo.

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The community needs a free and full choice of options under STV. That way we will get a true picture of which is the most acceptable option. Fmph (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that if STV is to be used, all reasonable options are to be considered. This will minimize future ambiguity on the results of the poll. (And yes, we're not talking about what options are best supported, this is just to outline what the poll should look like). --MASEM (t) 21:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ras52 you say that " if want to put additional requirements on proposals, propose an amendment to ground rules to require them" I placed my suggestions under the title "Proposed amendments" could you explain were I should propose if not under "Proposed amendments." Masem I'll accept all "reasonable options" as long as they are not in conflict with Wiki Policies. That is, they are fact based supported by our policies of verifiability using reliable sources and subject to neutral point of view. This will remove future ambiguity and command the support of the Community and no group of editors. This will in my opinion Fmph give a true picture of which is the most acceptable option. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Example amendment: Anonymous users" section was intended as an example of how to submit an amendment. If you do something similar and append it to the "Proposed amendments" section (i.e. immediately below the example), you won't go far wrong. Make sure you make it clear which rules you are amending, or if inserting additional rules, where they belong. We can then vote on it in the same way as the example one. Also, if you have several orthogonal changes to propose, if they can logically be separated into separate amendments, that might be useful, especially if some proposals are more likely to be accepted than others. —ras52 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ras52. Can I just clarify, is it the opinion of all, that a polling is the only solution being considered as part of the Selecting an on-going process. Is there any alternative to polling and what are they? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer48, So far as I'm concerned you can propose any process you like so long as it isn't overtly biased and will yield a result in the alloted time frame. I'm not quite sure I can see how a process without polling will work, but perhaps that's just lack of imagination on my part. But if you have any ideas of how a process without (or with less) polling would work, please go ahead and propose it. Irrespective of whether it is process finally chosen, it will be interesting to see how such a process might work. —ras52 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I stongly oppose this type of poll as a means of resolving the problem, as it is still dependent on dividing up the issues and voting separately on them. As I have stated many times previously, the only way to achieve a fair and stickable compromise is to agree EVERYTHING as a COMPREHENSIVE package. The solution - it seems clear to me - lies in a compromise: change the title of the ROI article in return for an agreement that ROI can be used within article texts when disambiguation is appropriate. If there is to be any poll, therefore, it should be on a comprehensive package as was proposed on the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force. By dividing up the issues, we invite the majority (even if it is only a narrow 51% majority) to "win" on every issue, leaving a disgruntled minority; whereas a compromise means 100% win something but 100% also concede something. Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Mooretwin's POV on this. There's no point on having a "comprehensive" package just to make sure some editors aren't unhappy. This process is about deciding what is the most NPOV and best solution. What makes editors happy or unhappy is irrelevant it's all about deciding what each individual aspect is best for the reader.MITH 10:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, why is a poll being proposed at all? Mooretwin (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Different editors think different solutions are best for the readers. Thats what this all comes down to.MITH 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. And there is no consensus. Hence the problem. Consensus will not be achieved by a poll, which basically comes down to one "side" winning by force of numbers. If we compromise, however, we can achieve a consensus whereby we all gain something but also concede something. Mooretwin (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

At the end of this, this is a compromise. When all the issues and their resolve are put together and laid out, I very much doubt that any editor without an active interest in the area will find the results to be 100% in their favor, but instead will find a number of results that he or she is satisfied with, and a number that they are ok with and a few that they disagree with but understand the consensus process. That's the whole point of consensus is to find a solution that the bulk of involved editors can agree they can work with even if it is not their preferred choice. There's a reason that the call to use STV here makes sense, because we can at least consider editors' second and third options should they choose to provide that. If we were to try to define the "comprehensive" plan, there would exactly one possible option for each involved editor, and we'd never get anything done that way. This type of poll (the one I proposed) is the shortest route to establishing the baseline issues and closing this issue done for the long term. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a compromise if you separate out the issues to be decided upon separately, because all you achieve is a "winners takes all" scenario, and it does not encourage compromise. A "winner takes all" is not, by definition, consensus. If such a poll occurs, for example, I will vote for the same outcome in all three polls. In a package solution I would be required to compromise. Again, I ask: what is wrong with IDTF proposal which gained more support than any previous suggestion? Mooretwin (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mooretwin on this, there needs to be a reasonable compromise which will lead to both sides concerns being addressed. Certain options are only acceptable to some people if things in another of the questions are accepted. Perhaps it would be better to combine the 3 questions into one just with a far larger number of options which people could rank. So for example, people could vote for...

1) Change title from Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state) using a pipelink of Ireland in most articles and text except for when there is a clear case of ambiguity because of Northern Ireland or the Island of Ireland, in which case... Republic of Ireland and "Island of Ireland" is used.

2) Keep title at Republic of Ireland using a pipelink of Ireland in most articles and text except for when there is a clear case of ambiguity because of Northern Ireland or the Island of Ireland, in which case... Republic of Ireland and "Island of Ireland" is used.

3) Change title from Republic of Ireland to Ireland and ONLY use Ireland in articles and text when talking about the sovereign state. Move the article on the island to Island of Ireland and always use the full title in articles text to avoid confusion with the state.

Ofcourse if we did something like that there would probably be more than a dozen options to choose from but atleast it deals with the whole problem, not splitting them into questions when certain things like the title and how to talk about it within articles is linked. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

MASEM, IMO you have hit the nail on the head above, "establishing the baseline issues and closing this issue for the long term." The base line issues have not been clearly defined. Any proposal must begin by clearly defining the problem to be resolved, and then providing a rational for the proposal which attempts to address the issue. I don’t think there is much support for a poll, and it appears that it is seen as a last option. Likewise, consensus on what the problem is has not been established. Some attempt at defining the problem was attempted here at the “Index of statements”. The statements can be divided into two clear groups, those statements which addressed themselves to the possible solution without defining the problem and those which addressed themselves to the actual problem, but not the solution. Would it be possible for the moderators to present what they define the problem to be, or ask the editors who put forward a solution/problem to attempt the opposite. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is really only one problem. Ireland is ambiguous, but i know thats something you do not accept. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on the contributor.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm i think you will find i did comment on content, i answered your question. You asked the mods to define the problem, i simply answered the question in its simplest form.. Ireland is ambiguous which is why all of these problems arise. My comment about you not accepting it wasnt meant in a nasty way, just recognition that you have disagreed with this point in the past. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is no more or no less ambiguous than the use of IRA and PIRA in Articles and we reached a solution. So your assumption is wrong. Likewise NI is no more or no less ambiguous than IRL. As ras52 has said “Processes may choose to address a wider range of issues than simply the names of the two Ireland articles.” I’m trying to formulate a process that a) clearly defines the problem, and b) provide a solution that attracts the support of the community and no one group of editors. Consensus seems unlikely, and polling does not command much support. The solution is based on what’s good for Misplaced Pages, not to prevent disruption. Now you suggest that Ireland is ambiguous, and that is the only problem? Would you like then to be first to set out to clearly define the problem, using diff’s to illustrate the point. I’m sure every editor involved would benefit and would provide the moderators the opportunity of entering in on the ground floor so to speak, instead of having to pull together a number of strings in a process they inherited. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you proved my point about you not accepting that Ireland is ambiguous, I have told you the problem very clearly. Ireland is ambiguous That is why there is a dispute about where the articles belong and how to describe the different things in the text of articles across wikipedia. Until you are prepared to accept this i dont see how you are going to be happy with anything that takes place here, because it goes against your core belief. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

BACK TO COMMENTING ON MASEM'S POLL

Masem, I agree with what you have here. I commend you for doing a very good job with difficult material, but like Fmph, I belleve that Q1 should contain "(c) Ireland for the nation-state, Ireland (disambiguation) for the disambiguation page, and another option (Island of Ireland or Ireland (island)) for the island." I agree with him that the Single Transferrable Vote will solve any dificulty that might arise, and consider that all three options be available in the spirit of fairness. Clearly the vote will winnow out that option if it is not preferred. -- Evertype·✆ 06:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Under Q3 you might add the Irish state and the Irish Republic which are terms that have some currency. -- Evertype·✆ 06:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Masem, imo Question 1 needs this option added:

• d) Ireland: an article explaining the general topic of Ireland, introducing and explaining the current ambiguity and modern day divergence between the island and the present state in prose format, and detailing at top-level in summary style, all conceivable Ireland/Irish topics, such as History, Geography, Politics, Culture etc etc etc, with sensible formatting to fork to both all Ireland sub topics, and other specialist articles (Northern Ireland being the most obvious). This is similar but intentionally not being proposed as identical to, the treatment of the ambiguity of the word China. Ireland (state): in detail coverage of the modern state only, with the bare minimum background/history bloat needed to understand the present state, and a logical top level home port for truly ROI only topic forks such as education/post formation history. Ireland (island): in detail coverage of the geography of the Ireland, and in detail coverage of any and all feasible Ireland (island) topics, such as telecoms cooperation, trade and transport, all Ireland sports, sinking island conspiracy theories etc etc etc, that otherwise in too much detail would unbalance the main Ireland article. This does give rise to three levels of coverage for some topics like Transport, but invariably, for most, the bottom level is already split between ROI/NI anyway, so it's no big deal.

This is an option that gets significant support when more thoughtfull people come to the issue, and are allowed to see the wood from the trees, the wood being the options most sensible and plausible to outside observers, the trees being the interminably persistant but ultimately circular reasoning of some of the regulars, who of course can only see one end all option, their 'piss everyone off' solution as they often call it, which bizarrely defines the word "Ireland" as having two totally separate meanings, much like Georgia. If any neutral editor were writing Ireland from scratch, they would never come to that solution - it is the devil child of years of pov/tendentious disruption, and is the sad end product of argument fatigue, the lowest intellectual common denominator.

This option would hopefully provide the true dam breaking 'compromise solution' under the single transferable vote system to break the inevitable no consensus result between a status quo/simplistic 2 option dab page poll. The best minor advantage from this option is that nobody will ever be able to edit war over whether just Ireland is a sensible incoming link from other articles: if editors at the incoming article themselves can't decide using the context a more sensible target for an incoming link, it can be just left at Ireland - the reader is not disadvantaged by being presented with a meaningless 2 way dab page, they can *gasp* find out for themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen that option considered before (or if it was, it got drowned out), but seems like a potential sensible solution. We'd still need Ireland (disambiguation) as part of that. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is a good option which shouldnt be left out yes. Very good point about editors on other articles not having to argue about which Ireland a link should go to in certain cases where it could be about either or both the island and the state BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid's voting proposal

Like many people, I think, I would like to see this process end. IMHO there is no likelihood of discussion ending on this page. I think a binding vote is the only possibility (as was used to in the case of Danzig/Gdansk). This vote should take place on a subpage of Talk:Ireland and be widely publicised.

In the case of Danzig/Gdansk, there were only two choices so a straight vote could determine the most preferred choice. In the case of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, there are many possible outcomes. I've taken a look at Masem's proposal above, but I don't see how it will lead to a genuinely preferred decision (or even how, at the end of, an indisputably conclusive answer could be drawn). As a consequence, I think a vote by PRSTV is the way to go. (PRSTV was recommended above by ras52 too.)

(For those unfamiliar with PRSTV, it is the electoral system used in Ireland. It's purpose is to determine the most preferred - not just the most popular - among multiple options. I've written a quick overview to how PRSTV works with an example.)

I have prepared a draft of the "ballot paper" for such a vote in my sandbox. The options I think are most likely are:

• Ireland / Republic of Ireland (status quo)
• Ireland as dab page → Ireland (island) / Ireland (state)
• Ireland / Ireland (island)
• Ireland / Ireland (state)

These can, of course, be added to or taken away from before a vote is run, but - obviously - once the vote is opened we cannot changed the options on the ballot.

I think the vote should be run over the course of one month. If we get broad agreement, why not start running the vote within next week? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Intriguing, you may have given me reason to rejoin the Ireland naming discussion 'fully', again. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent proposal, but I disagree with having the arguments written beneath each option. ~Asarlaí 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nice proposal but having the arguments beside them is a bad idea. Just the options should be there.MITH 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take the arguments out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: Done. I've removed the "arguments" from beneath the possible choices. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I would be explicit about what content is ending up where (possibly a table format). There's also technically a 5th option, being Dab + Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland. I see no problem with this format to answer the basic naming question and leaving the other questions (what to distinguish Ireland (state) in article text)) --MASEM (t) 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think the options should be a bit more explicit. I propose it be worded like this:

A) the island at ___ / the state at ___ / disambiguation at ___

etc etc

~Asarlaí 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If we went ahead with a vote just on the article name itself, what is going to happen about the other concerns raised like how it is mentioned in text. We need this resolved at the same time, there cant be a gap between the basic vote on where articles belong resulting in the articles being moved followed by weeks of debate about how to handle the new articles in text, during which we will see some editors going around removing Republic of Ireland from where there is a clear need to use the term to avoid confusion with the whole island. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, the two votes should be taken at the same time. I suggest we use Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal as the basis of the second question (regarding usage in article text). ~Asarlaí 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be Ireland (Island) and Ireland (State)--De Unionist (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the options per Superfopp's suggestion. See sandbox. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A vote on this single issue will not solve the dispute, since the dispute is much wider than this and covers references to the 26-county state in the texts of hundreds of other articles, and also articles about, e.g. "Politics of the Republic of Ireland". I therefore oppose it. The solution lies in a compromise between the article names and the other issues as per the Task Force. As I've said before, while I believe the state article should be at Republic of Ireland, I'm prepared for that to change in return for an agreement on the use of RoI elsewhere. In the absence of such an agreement, however, I will oppose the change of the current state article name. Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said below. (Status quo) should not appear beside the voting options. In the real world does it say Fianna Fail (status quo)?MITH 10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"In the real world does it say Fianna Fail (status quo)?" No for much longer! I've taken it out. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I think (and hope) that we all know that some instances of the description Republic of Ireland will be used within articles for disambiguation. That's one of the things the description can do. It can be helpful. I don't think there is much opposition to the occasional use of that term WITHIN articles for the purposes of disambiguation. There would be opposition to a POV that tried to use it massively throughout most articles (which would be some people's desire evidently). But in my view Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's sandbox poll, with its Single Transferrable Vote, is an excellent way of settling the naming question. Specific rules for when to use the term Republic of Ireland within articles can be worked out, but I would not like to see you or Mooretwin blocking progress because of this. Mooretwin, I can equally take your sentence and mirror it, with clarifications: As I've said before, while I believe the state article should be at Ireland, I'm prepared for it to be at Ireland (state) and understand that there needs to be an agreement on the use of Republic of Ireland elsewhere -- though its use must be restricted to instances of genuine ambiguity. Does that help? -- Evertype·✆ 09:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Regaining some focus

We seem to have two proposals on the table at the moment — Masem's poll with three separate questions, and Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll with just one question. Rannṗáirtí has very helpfully produced a page for his (though it might be worth moving that to a sub-page of this Wikiproject). Can I suggest that Masem does something similar? A lot of extra options have been proposed for Masem's poll, and I'm completely lost track of which ones Masem has agreed to add and which are not. Domer48 has repeatedly said that we use a mechanism that does not involve voting, and under the previous moderators there seemed to be consensus against voting. However to date, I have not noticed any proposals that don't involve voting and that actually stand a chance of yielding a result. I would therefore like to encourage Domer48 to come up with a formal proposal too.

Second, I notice that several users (including both moderators) have not signed up to the ground rules. I said in those ground rules that they wouldn't come into force unless they had a majority of support and if the two moderators subscribed to them by midnight Sunday. Can I encourage people, particularly the moderators, to do this; or if they don't wish to support it, to say why not. (If the moderators would prefer to discuss that with me off-wiki, my email address is on my user page.)

Thirdly, can I repeat BritishWatcher's plea that we try to focus on the process by which we are going to resolve this, rather than going round in circles reiterating the arguments for and against Ireland the state and Ireland the island? I've not seen any new arguments raised, and anyway, the time to discuss that is after we have sorted out the process.

Finally, and rather more trivially, would anyone object if some of this page was archived? It is getting really rather long. I would suggest that everything before 2.23 This is not what I signed up for could safely be archived.

—ras52 (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above comments, although id say archive everything from before we got the new moderators.. it was a fresh start we should of refreshed the talk page then. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will just comment that I have no problem with which poll, mine or Rannṗáirtí, just that I believe this is the path of least resistance to go forward; I have no strong ties to my own poll, and if Rannṗáirtí's is preferred, all the better. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive a good idea, agree.--De Unionist (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Fmph (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I reserve the right to keen again if keening is warranted. -- Evertype·✆ 09:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Asarlaí's voting proposal

This combines elements of Masem's proposal and Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal.

Question 1: Under which titles should be placed the island of Ireland, the state of Ireland, and the disambiguation page for "Ireland"?

A) The island at Ireland / the state at Republic of Ireland (status quo)

B) The island at Ireland (island) / the state at Ireland (state) / disambiguation at Ireland

C) The island at Ireland / the state at Ireland (state)

D) The island at Ireland (island) / the state at Ireland

Question 2: In some articles there are occasions when distinctions should be made between Ireland-the-island, Ireland-the-state, and Northern Ireland. Where it isn't necessary to distinguish between these (for example in lists of sovereign states), the state should be referred to as "Ireland".

Where it is necessary to distinguish between these, what term should be used to describe the state?

A) Republic of Ireland

B) state of Ireland

Opinions? ~Asarlaí 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first part is almost identical to the poll I posed, though formatted differently. The second part ... well ... it's a bit rulish, and most people won't adhere to it. But I guess if the result is community endorsed then it will be a good way of quenching edit-wars whenever the occur among users not familiar with the result. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On the second part, there was good support for BlueHairedLawyers' proposal (see above). We could run a simultaneous poll about that. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, having a vote for or against that sort of statement explaining the ground rules for how to use Ireland in text i think is a fairer way and the vast majority would support it so it would be a much more solid agreement. The trouble with the above suggested poll is the large number who think the country article should be at Republic of Ireland will vote for that to be used in text, the large number strongly opposed to it will vote another way, simply creating more disagreement. We should try a vote on the sort of proposal mentioned above by coṁrá. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Question 2 cannot be poled. Only discussion can sort that out as Rannpháirtí anaithnid has pointed out above me. Also no need to put (status quo) in the vote.MITH 10:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet again can I advise that separate polls on each issue are not organised as there will be no compromise and therefore no consensus. For example, if the above poll were run I would vote for A and A (no compromise). If a package is offered, however, I would have to accept a compromise. Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I always had supported a vote on Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal. Second, I assumed the poll would be using STV (ranking in order of preference)? ~Asarlaí 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Ireland (island) vs. Ireland (state) (split from above)

I cannot see what the problem is with Ireland (island) and Ireland (state)? Why do you oppose this Mooretwin, you must have some specific reservations which for the life of me i cannot recognise? Ireland is an island and Ireland is a recognised State so what's the difficulty. Certainly, I agree that we Irish, north and south, also use the terms such as the Irish Republic, the Republic of Ireland and the Free State daily in conversation and communication because that is what we all know it as.--De Unionist (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"I cannot see what the problem is..." Neither side can't. I can't see what's wrong with things as they are. We've been over and over this for years. See the archives on this page and many other, we've been through this time and time again. There's no point any more, we won't achieve a consensus. Let's just vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not until I get an answer to my question by anyone who disagrees with using Ireland (island) and Ireland (State). --De Unionist (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it inconveniences ALL readers who wish to find the Ireland article because it sends them to a disambiguation page. It also doesn't solve the dispute about referring to Ireland within other articles. Mooretwin (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We must recognize, Mooretwin, that initially it will take work for us to do a lot of piping. I'm willing to help with that. Once the piping is done, we can watch for Ireland links and pipe them as an ongoing task for the Wikiproject Ireland. Regarding the use of RoI as a disambiguator within articles, what is your proposal? (Make it again, here, succinctly. Do not point us back to months-old discussion on another page, please.) -- Evertype·✆ 09:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A bot could do all of that because it would simply be a case of changeling *all* ] to ], *all* ] or ] to ] then finally *all* (few) ] to ].

That's not the issue. The issue would be why would we move a page that got 1,763 hits last month (the dab page) over a page that got 200,905? There's no need for it. Nobody goes there. 151,456 people found Republic of Ireland quiet easily last month without it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Britannica solution"

IMHO Ireland is a primary topic (i.e. deals with the history, culture, geography, people of all of Ireland). The article currently at Republic of Ireland is a subtopic of that (in respect of history, culture, geography, people etc.) Some people are unhappy at the article on the state being at Republic of Ireland and would like it to be moved to Ireland (state). That would be fine by me. Dabbing the Ireland page would be my last choice, since it would introduce a needless step into the equation (everything you might need to know about Ireland is in the Ireland article, if you want to know more about specifically the state of the same name, go to article that deals with specifically with that).

Contrast our way of doing things with Britannica which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current Ireland and Republic of Ireland). I would be in favour of such a solution too (over the current solution). From experience though it wouldn't work on WP. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't view the island as the primary topic but I'd strongly consider the Britannica option as a good potential solution.MITH 12:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Add it to the vote? (i.e. E: Merge Ireland and Republic of Ireland in Ireland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend adding that as well as the option suggested by MickMacNee above (an Ireland article in addition to one about the island and one about the state). The benefit of STV is that providing more options (but not too many) can provide a clearer picture of what people are wanting; maybe it ends up that people's #1 picks are all over the place but #2 is one of these options - that might suggest a better consensus than the majority #1 if it's only by a few votes. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Although I don't really see the advantage of MickMacNee's proposal over Ireland/Ireland (state). Sounds like it would be just one more article to fight over to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done? Done where? What was done? -- Evertype·✆ 18:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a proposed "ballot paper" in my sandbox. I am amending it with suggestions from here. This all leads on from my proposal above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid the suggestion by MickMacNee's is basically the same as the one you suggested above, and considered a possible solution by both MitH and Masem. I would be in agreement with the "Britannica solution" which makes no distinction between the state and the island, having only one article that is ostensibly about the state, but which actually covers the whole island (like a merger between our current Ireland and Republic of Ireland). This Ireland article would then be subject to MickMacNee's suggestion, with a brief outline on each heading with disambiguation headings on each directing readers to the Article which deals with the subject in more detail. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I added MickMacNee suggestion to the "ballot paper" in my sandbox anyway. It would do no harm having it in a PRSTV vote. (I didn't mean to sound dismissive of it. Apologies to MickMacNee if I did.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, such a merger should only take place if Ireland were to be reunited. ~Asarlaí 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Content of either article (island or country), being shifted to the other? is unacceptable. This is one bloke, who'll never consent to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If im reading the above right, I strongly oppose the suggestion that there should be a single article on Ireland covering the state and island.. thats deeply offensive and will certainly not lead to consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher, a single article on 'Ireland' is a nonsense and not the way to go. There has to be a proper determination which could lead to a consensus. It is about time an Admin took a lead in this. --De Unionist (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend re-reading MickMacNee's suggestion again (however, this is not an endorsement, just that it seems a valid option to consider in a STV poll). That is, while an article on Ireland will be a mashup of the island and the state and likely older countries that have been on the island (eg Irish Free State), there will still have to be subarticles on the island proper and the 26-county state proper; it's not an attempt to merge these two. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats not how i read it although like i said i wasnt sure. I liked the idea mentioned yesterday or the other day about having a basic article covering everything about Ireland like is done with China and then a further article for the Island / State. But from the above conversation it sounded to me like an attempt to have a single article for both the island / state without sub articles being the main articles for the country / island. These options are going to have to be very well worded to avoid any misunderstanding. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is the option to have a single Ireland article, merging the island and state. I'm not so sure how much support that has, but I think it's fair to add it to the STV poll. That should give 6 options, which I think covered nearly every viewpoint stated here. --MASEM (t) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The merger proposal is different again from MickMacNee's proposal. It's based on how the Encyclopedia Britannia deals with the topic of Ireland i.e. they don't have an "island" article, their "Ireland" article is ostensibly about the state but deals with all of the stuff that is in our "island" article. The equivalent for us is to merge Ireland into Republic of Ireland then move Republic of Ireland to Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like this proposed article (assuming we'll be keeping the country & island articles). Afterall, the China article would be a precedent for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have before me a 9 volume set called "A New History of Ireland". The first volume is "Prehistoric and Early Ireland", edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, and there is no ambiguity about Ireland. All 9 volumes deal with the concept of Ireland the island. But to note, in Volume 9 (the most useful one), where a list of offices holders, office holders of the Republic hold office in "Ireland" and ones in Northern Ireland in "Northern Ireland". Whatever change happens in this process, I hope there will be general agreement that before the break-off of most of the island from the United Kingdom, Ireland is not ambiguous, and that no-one will argue for absurdities like History of Ireland (island); but it is true to say that probably in most minds, the concepts of Ireland and the state of Ireland are more merged into each other than they are separate. It's just unfortunate that merging the two is so unoperable on wikipedia because wikipedia is so large and can easily accomodate both separately. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's too bad that all the island counties didn't support independence from the UK. Misplaced Pages could've done without the year-after-year disputes. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears obvious that editors who were Polls apart, have reached or are reaching a consensus on the "Britannica/China solution." While no editor gets all they want, we all get to have an agreement which stays firmly within the framwork of Wiki. To continue now with a Poll which no editor really wants, flies in the face of the consensus staring stright at us. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus?

• "...a single article on 'Ireland' is a nonsense and not the way to go." - De Unionis
• "...such a merger should only take place if Ireland were to be reunited." - Asarlaí
• "...strongly oppose the suggestion..." - BritishWatcher
• "I'm not so sure how much support that has, but I think it's fair to add it to the STV poll." - Masem

Let's stick it in as an option for a STV vote. If it's is consensus then it will "win" hands down. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a fair enough solution and I would give my endorsement to it also it appears some consensus is begining to form on this issue. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and if we have consensus here can we not just take the next step and implement it instead of stalling and the whole affair becoming bogged down gain with endless arguments going nowhere. BigDunc 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure people are clear on what this so called consensus is even on. Theres the China way on wikipedia, where theres a general article about the area along with links to the main article about the country. I could support that idea with a general article about Ireland with links to Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Island articles.

However the "Britannica solution" if that is what some people are supporting is totally unacceptable and no consensus on this method will be formed. It is not acceptable to have just a single article on the Island/country, just the idea of it is offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While editors are using terms like offensive to describe a possible solution we are at a total impass. This kind of loaded language is extremly unhelpful. Out of curiousity what is offensive about it? BigDunc 11:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to be clear about my thoughts on this matter and by some other comments above its clear there is no consensus on the "Britannica solution". Its offensive because the Republic of Ireland can not claim ownership over the whole island and its history. The ROI is not the only country on the island of Ireland there for why should they be combined. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that an editor who is a firm supporter of the imposition of the term British Isles onto Ireland can be offened by a solution because their unionist/loyalist POV, suppose you just have to laugh at the hypocrisy. BigDunc 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles is a geographical term just like Europe. Plenty of people do not like Europe here, it doesnt mean we are not part of Europe and can simply opt out of it. Having an article on the British isles does not prevent an article on the island of Ireland or the country, if it did then ofcourse that would be unacceptable. The Republic of Ireland does not include the whole of the island of Ireland, so i do not see how the "island" information can be combined with the sovereign state. In the case of Australia which is both a country and a continent its acceptable to have a single article, but Ireland is divided so the island of Ireland cant be combined with just one state. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, Ireland the state has possession of 85% of the land of the island, and all of the seas around the island. Therefore Northern Ireland is actually inside Ireland the state and island. It is rather difficult for some to grasp/accept these precisions, and a consideration that would indeed justify the "one Ireland" article. Tfz 12:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The first reasonable solution which does not go out side our policies, and a typical reaction by some editors. If a load of editors came on here to support this, all talk of a poll would go out the window. I'm not happy with it all, but the editors who want seperate article get them. What is wrong with the China article? I find myself in agreement with editors with which I'm polls apart on most issues to me that's progress! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, consensus isn't formed by insisting that there is consensus. Of the few editors that have offered and opinion, more have expressed a dislike for the "Britannica solution" that have said they are in favour of it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say consensus was achieved on this? Of the editors that expressed a dislike one is a new editor with 24 edits and a very strong POV that is currently blocked and suspicions of a sock have been muted about this editor too. But AGF their opinion is still noted. BigDunc 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid "consensus isn't formed by insisting that there is consensus." In this discussion that is all I've had from one group of editors, saying they have a consensus but not one can show me were this discussion took place! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"ArbCom would like to see more collaboration from your part in particular." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid, slow down man, we will get this sorted in the end! However, I dont see any clear concensus - maybe a straw poll would help. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs)

This "Brittanica" solution is only an option to be considered in a poll. I can tell from past discussion that it's not necessarily popular or editors' first choice, but it is a valid one to consider particularly in light of a STV-type poll. It should not be considered the target solution that everyone needs to agree on, just that it is one possible solution. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is brilliant. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Vin, nothing wrong with a straw poll, but it seems some have only a poll in mind! Like I said, if there is a swing in numbers, we will see back tracking in addition to the digging in of heels that we are seeing. If twenty editors came here supporting it, I'll still be opposed to polling, Polling discourages consensus.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that if there was consensus to come to a common solution among all, that would definitely be preferable to polling. However, my judgement here is that there is an inseparable divide between at least two of the opinions given (and not 90/10-like split, we're talking 50/50), and the fact that this has existed since the start of the project means it is not going to go away anytime soon with a magical solution.

Which is why, as a moderator, I strongly back the polling effort over attempts to discuss the issue in circles over and over again. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we're going nowhere. We've been here for six months. Where's another eight years in the archives of Talk:Republic of Ireland. The status quo is all we have but the dissenting voices are right, the status quo is not consensus. So even as someone who supports the status quo, let's take a vote on the options (the development of which, at least, has been a positive outcome of the past six months) and bind ourselves to whatever result there may be. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity, my proposed option is not a simple merger of ROI/Ireland. That strikes me as wholly violating the NPOV by conflating the island with the state, and remember, Brittanica is probably just as concerned with saving paper as being neutral, so the comparison with what they do is weak. Sensible amounts of duplication does not harm us. The heart of the dispute is ambiguity, so none of the three proposed new articles of Ireland, Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) will be a Primary Topic of Ireland per se, that description will be wholly dependant on context. But for completeness, a simple merger should be included in the vote if we are going to be using STV. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Britannica solution" is a "simple" merger. I put the "MickMacNee" solution on the ballot paper, but I don't really understand it. If we have a Ireland (island) article (as well as a seperate Ireland (state) article), what would the new article at Ireland be about? How would it be differet form out current Ireland article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the proposed article would be like the China article. There's the China articles & also the People's Republic of China & Republic of China articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that not what we have now? We have an Ireland article (like China) and there also the Republic of Ireland article (like People's Republic of China)? What would the third Ireland article be about? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the current Ireland is about the island. The suggestion seems to be that instead of that article just being about the island it becomes a general overview of everything like the island/ history / ROI/NI etc then sub articles about the Island, country, and Northern Ireland. It does seem like that option is simply going to create even more duplication, keeping the island where it is would be the easiest solution (although the country article still would need renaming) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I will suggest the best course of action is that if this particular proposal is chosen, that we will want to spend some discussion to describe the bounds of it to keep duplication to a minimum after the vote. Think of it like the intersection in a Venn diagram, though, for purposes of the poll - it should describe elements of the island and the country (and it's past) that are normally associated with that body of land throughout time. (Again, I make no attempt to endorse this solution, only helping to clarify why I think it should be on the poll). --MASEM (t) 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"...instead of that article just being about the island it becomes a general overview of everything like the island/ history / ROI/NI..." Eh, but the current article is about those things. From it table of contents: Political geography ... Wildlife ... History ... The Irish Free State, Éire, Ireland ... Northern Ireland ... Culture ... Science ... Sport ... Demographics ... Cities ... Transport ... Energy network ...

What would be differrent about the new article? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well i presume it just wouldnt go into as much detail about things like Geography, wildlife etc which could be moved to its own article but i dont know. Its certainly going to need a detailed explanation if this is put to a vote so we know exactly what we are all voting for. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is there two articles on Ireland?

Why is there two articles on Ireland? --CarolDonegal (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. Confusing huh? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Having lived in England all my life, living in Ireland only four years that sounds crazy. Like most English people, on Ireland I was clueless. I live in Donegal, which is in Northern Ireland in Ulster. When my Mum and Dad said that I nearly died. Now I know there is Northern Ireland and there is Northern Ireland. Confusing? Well not as confusing as there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. They are the same thing! It would have to have been a man to come up with that one. If I want to read an article on Ireland, that is all I should have to look for. There is only one Ireland, and only one article needed. --CarolDonegal (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the Republic of Ireland cover all of the island of Ireland? If you have lived in Northern Ireland obviously you know this is not the case there for how can there be a single article on different matters? I live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland this country occupies the WHOLE of the island of Great Britain and yet there is still an article on both. Its not our fault the Republic of Ireland chose to name their country that of the Island.

Its also interesting to see this is ur first contributions here on wikipedia, i see the recent comments about lots of new users arriving to rig the poll is starting to come true. Will the Admins be doing regular Sock checks and banning those people trying to cheat? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

She does live in Northern Ireland this actually shows an ambiquity with the name given to the 6 counties, Donegal is the most northern county in Ireland. For that matter Monaghan has a more northern point than almost half of the 6 counties Down, Armagh and Fermanagh. BigDunc 15:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is crazy people taking this as anything other than a joke, come on guys. Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland? I live in Northern Ireland, it is in Ireland. I do not live in the United Kingdom now, and I never called it United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The name of the island is Ireland guys. Everyone in the world calls it that so lets stop being silly. I'm just a reader who wanted to get some information on Ireland, and I discovered there was two articles and a silly discussion. All I see is a small group of people playing a game saying there is an island called Ireland and a country called Ireland. Grow up please. --CarolDonegal (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland?" – actually, within the "six-counties", the "twentysix-counties" are never referred to as "Ireland". Whether they be republican/nationalist/unionist/loyalist, it's always referred to as "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic" or "the south". ~Asarlaí 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of WP:OR Asarlaí you speak for the whole six counties do you? BigDunc 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's just from my own experience. But if you ever go there I guarantee you'll find that to be the case (not that it makes a difference on Misplaced Pages). ~Asarlaí 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If I ever go there, do you know my history, my family history again a sweeping generalisation using YOUR experience and claiming it is the experience of the whole 6 counties. BigDunc 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was anything more than my own experience. All I'm saying is that, within the "six-counties", I've never seen/heard the "twentysix-counties" being referred to as "Ireland". It's the same no matter who I've talked to, the papers I've read, the news programmes I've watched, or the radio stations I've listened to. ~Asarlaí 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I have heard it. BigDunc 16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if its NEVER used in Northern Ireland, which we know is simply not true, we can all accept that the BBC and other British organisations rightly or wrongly do use the term Republic of Ireland so its not like this is being made up by a couple of editors here. If this is moving towards a vote by the way are we going to get everyone registered on the members page and ONLy allow those registered to vote incase we do get a flood of new users to swing the result? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and two political parties in Northern Ireland use the term Republic of Ireland. Even the SDLP which want a united Ireland uses the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And I sometimes call it "The South", it's neither here nor there. Don't see why BBC should hold any sway one way or the other, which is an arm of the British Government, who refused to recognise Ireland, and carried out an economic war against the fledgling state, so there is a "history" involved. We all know what the name is, and that it is described as a 'republic' in order to distinguish it from the monarchy that it once was. Let's move forward on this. Tfz 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC call the country the Irish Republic. Should that be considered as a title because they use it? If CNN decided they'd call the country "Paddy Land" should we acknowledge that also? The manual of style of the media from a particular country should have no effect on this process.MITH 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And ofcourse theres the fact that Irelands football team is actually called the Republic of Ireland and people come here and lie through their teeth about it never being used and act like its a made up name on wikipedia. Ofcourse it is described as many things Tfz, but CarolDonegal came here saying its NEVER used. What a damn joke, i agree lets move on. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The name of the football team is a completely different issue. Both teams on the island wanted to use the name Ireland. FIFA said none could have it and imposed a name on both team. Regarding the republic, it has no connection to the name of the country.MITH 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And the football team is the only thing I know called by RoI, and please stop accusing people of telling lies, it's considered disruption. Enough of 'oneupmanship'. Tfz 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ROI is a term nothing more it has no relevence to the name of the country Ireland. BigDunc 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But it is a term, that is all im saying (im not making a case for the article being there). I am just saying in respones to

"It is crazy people taking this as anything other than a joke, come on guys. Who calls Ireland the Republic of Ireland?"

That there are plenty of sources and examples of Republic of Ireland being used. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland is not the official name of the state, but it is the official description of the state. End of story. Let's not debate this yet again. ~Asarlaí 17:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sectioned off this section as not particularly relevant to the one it was started in. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Donegal is the most Northern part of Ireland. It's seems like some guys want to say that the most Northern part of Ireland is in the South. That is how silly this is and can only be the product of a man's need to argue. The Ireland article is and should be about Ireland, but some guys from the North say NO, supported by some guys from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, guys leave your out dated politics at the door the world has moved on. --CarolDonegal (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Donegal is the most northern part of Ireland, yes. But your opening statement says Donegal is in Northern Ireland. Um, no. It's in northern Ireland - small 'n'. Subtle but important difference. Bastun 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

So we need to disambaguate Northern Ireland as it is confusing for the reader. BigDunc 13:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they just need to know what state they live in? Bastun 13:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they know where they live it appears they are pointing out the need for diambag on the name Northern Ireland. IMO that name is more confusing to the reader than the claim being pushed that Ireland is. BigDunc 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe we need to worry about this case in order to narrow down what options to vote. Primarily, this is due to the fact that I see no articles that talk about the geographic regions of the 26-county state (in contrast to, say Southwestern United States); because of that, if a user was seeking info on "northern Ireland" (lower-case n), they would likely first end up on "Northern Ireland"; from there, a dab note or (as done now) a disambiguation page can point to the general article on the 26-county state due to lack of a specific geographic region article. Should that article ever be created, the dab would just have to be updated to refer to that. However, clearly, unlike the present disambiguation between "Ireland" for island and state, "Northern Ireland" has a single most common meaning in English, and that's the state that is part of the UK, so there would be no need to go through this lengthy process again. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Ireland" has a single most common meaning in English, and that's the state that is part of the UK" Ireland has a single most common meaning in English, and every European contry. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Because everyone who wants to move the article Republic of Ireland to the page Ireland seems to want to remove all the important stuff about the island. And says things like "The republic part is Ireland and the rest is not." Crazy, huh? (only read what OP DonegalCarol wrote, sorry) ~ R.T.G 22:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. in response to Asarlai ("in the six counties people say Republic of Ireland") Well, outside of football, they practically never say that because they always say "Down south" or "Free state". ~ R.T.G 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This really doesn't make a difference on Misplaced Pages. But anyway... in newspapers, news programmes, radio stations and common speech, I've only ever heard/seen "the Republic of Ireland", "the Republic", "the south" and "the twentysix-counties" being used. If someone said "I'm going to Ireland tomorrow" they'd be met with confused faces. ~Asarlaí 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Agreed the 'faces' and lol. ~ R.T.G 09:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote taking place on "British Isles" terminology

A poll is on at the BI-taskforce to see whether a compromise can be reached over the usage of the term "British Isles", at Misplaced Pages:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force#Poll. Just incase you're interested. FF3000 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Emerging consensus

There appears to be an emerging consensus that,
(1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc.
(2) Northern Ireland, though may be ambigious to some as in 'northern Ireland', keep its current title,
(3) Ireland (state) refers to to Ireland, the modern state,
(4) Republic of Ireland article refers to the '1949 RoI Act', and
(5) There is only one state in the world named Ireland, therefore disambiguation is unnecessary for 'Ireland state' related titles.

Some editors want detailed disambiguation guidelines in advance of any moves, but that will only stop the process moving forward, and details written in advance of a move will not work as they will lead to widespread disruption and Wikilawyering. My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. All wording problems can easily be solved by good faith NPOV editing. The road ahead is clear. Tfz 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm whilst i agree with most of the above, i think Republic of Ireland should be a redirect to the country article (where ever that goes) rather than another article describing the ROI act. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that ROI should be redirected to the country article. BigDunc 14:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it appears this emerging consensus is no where near consensus yet BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is where the RoI article must connect with, Republic of Ireland Act 1948. The very reason for this discussion page is for the untenable RoI situation be attended to. By "i think Republic of Ireland should be a redirect to the country article (where ever that goes) rather than another article describing the ROI act." is fundamentally going against the reason why this page was set up in the first instance. By taking that stance, you are adopting the 'Status Quo' here at Misplaced Pages, which has been deficient thus far. This is why ArbCom will have to come in and make judgment on the true consensus. Tfz 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm im sorry but the status quo is still a possible outcome of this dispute although i find it unlikely that will happen. This is to do with where the article on Ireland the country belongs, no matter where it gets moved to that doesnt mean there is going to be some new article at Republic of Ireland. from previous debates ive seen on this matter ROI would continue to act as a redirect. If Arbcom wanted to come and have a look where we are right now, im sorry but they would not find consensus here yet, even if some seem urgent to declare it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I defer to the longstanding editors who have edited these articles over the years. Tfz

I generally agree with Tfz's numbered points above, except that I think that initially, RoI should be kept as a redirect to Ireland (state). Once we complete a cleanup run and change appropriate RoI links to I(s), we can re-point RoI to Republic of Ireland Act. That sound reasonable to anyone else? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In what sense is this 'apparent consensus' emerging? For the life of me, I can't see it. Fmph (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, several people have said we are close to consensus in the past few days, i must of missed it though because theres still some core disagreements. I dont have a problem with the country article being moved off of Republic of Ireland, however i strongly oppose this idea of having some different article at Republic of Ireland. It is a commonly known term for the country and deserves a redirect to where ever the country article goes, not just short term but always (considering its been at Republic of Ireland on here for years, we suddenly must now not even have it as a redirect??? seems crazy BritishWatcher (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer Ireland to be a DAB but if thats where the consensus is going, I would back it. I agree with BritishWatcher that "Republic of Ireland" should be a redirect to the country article rather than another article describing the ROI act. Regards . Redking7 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine, if it's got consensus. Except that Republic of Ireland should redirect to Ireland (state). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also agree, better than current. ROI could be a dab if it makes things easier --Snowded 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal except, like most others above, I would argue Republic of Ireland should redirect to Ireland (state) with a dablink to Republic of Ireland Act 1948. Rockpocket 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) So we leave the reader to think that ROI is the name of the country when it is not and the 1949 RoI Act is just forgotten about. Are we not supposed to inform the reader not just pander to pro british POV. BigDunc 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A DAP page on ROI would avoid any confusion there (it could make it clear that ROI is a description, something everyone agrees on. Equally a note at the top of the new Ireland(state) which says that ROI is the descrription and pipe-links to the 1949 act would work. --Snowded 18:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A redirect would make it more clear instead of a note on the top of the article. BigDunc 18:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether, when a person types "Republic of Ireland" into the search bar, do they expect to be brought to an article on the declaration of the state as a republic or do they expect to be brought to an article on the state often called by that name (be it its official name or not)? I expect that, when a person types "United Kingdom" into the search bar, they expect to be brought to an article on that state, not an article on the 1801 Act of Union, despite "United Kingdom" not being the official name of the state. The same applies when a person types United States etc.

Why make life difficult for our readers for the sake of some pedantic argument? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Put the DAB onto the article on the act, it is factually correct and it informs the reader which is the purpose of wikipedia. BigDunc 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Rannpháirtí anaithnid has written above. If the article on the state is moved to a new title, Republic of Ireland should direct there. ~Asarlaí 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A new title you make it sound like we just made up a term, it is the correct name of the article and making ROI a redirect just perpetuates the lie that ROI is the name of Ireland it is not and should not redirect to Ireland. You are rewarding ignorance. Jus because someone ignorantly calls Ireland ROI doesn't mean we have to pander to this ignorance with a redirect. BigDunc 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the official description of the state. Nobody is claiming that's the official name. ~Asarlaí 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid makes a very good point. UK doesn't redirect to 1800 Act of Union, United States doesn't redirect to United States Declaration of Independence and South Africa doesn't redirect to Constitution of South Africa. There are many other examples. In each case, these are not official names, but commonly used alternative names, abbreviations or descriptions of sovereign states. Its patently obvious that >99% of our readers would want to read about the state if they type these terms into the text box, they would not primarily want to read about the origin of the term. Can you justify why Republic of Ireland should be different? These sorts of redirects are not "rewarding ignorance" any more than redirecting misspelled terms to the correct article are. I have an idea, lets redirect Irland to Learn to spell. That would teach those ignorant bastards, eh? Rockpocket 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Its patently obvious that >99% of our readers would want to read about the state if they type these terms into the text box, they would not primarily want to read about the origin of the term." so obvious you'll reference it. This is a fact based discussion? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Its a logic based assertion based upon a metric we can measure - edits. But lets not derail the "emerging consensus" on this issue. I'll happily continue to discuss this after the ROI article title is free to direct somewhere! Rockpocket 20:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be an emerging consensus that, (1) Ireland be a primary topic about island, ancient history, culture, art, tourism etc etc. (2) Northern Ireland, though may be ambigious to some as in 'northern Ireland', keep its current title, (3) Ireland (state) refers to to Ireland, the modern state, (4) Republic of Ireland article refers to the '1949 RoI Act', and (5) There is only one state in the world named Ireland, therefore disambiguation is unnecessary for 'Ireland state' related titles.

Some editors want detailed disambiguation guidelines in advance of any moves, but that will only stop the process moving forward, and details written in advance of a move will not work as they will lead to widespread disruption and Wikilawyering. My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. All wording problems can easily be solved by good faith NPOV editing. The road ahead is clear. Tfz 13:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I oppose any attempt to move forward with TfZ's proposal because it appears to be an attempt to purge Misplaced Pages of the perfectly-legitimate and normal (in the real world) term "Republic of Ireland". I refer to this statement: My proviso to any move is that the term "Republic of Ireland" should never be used to refer to the 'Irish state'. This is not compromise.

I oppose the move because it fails to deal with the fundamental issue of referring to the 26-county state in other articles, and also the titles of articles relating to the 26-county state and or the whole island.

I also oppose any move which involves dealing or voting separately with issues in the absence of an overall agreement about ALL issues.

The best compromise solution remains that put forward by the Ireland Disambiguation Task Force.

Mooretwin (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin, can you simplify your understanding of the "Ireland Disambiguation Task Force" proposal/s. Thanks. Tfz 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new article for Republic of Ireland

This is a proposed article for the Republic of Ireland with a disambiguation hatnote on the top for Republic of Ireland Act 1948 . Misplaced Pages is directed at the readers, and this article which is completely referenced has not been challenged by anyone on either WP:V, or WP:NPOV. It directly relates to the subject of the Article title. That we are again moving forward is to be welcomed. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

When I said an "Emerging consensus" I did not say there was one. I based in on the comments of rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, MITH, GoodDay, Deacon of Pndapetzim and MickMacNee's suggestion in addition to BigDunc, Tfz and CarolDonegal. There are Editors here who are normally polls apart so was I not correct in saying "Emerging consensus"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs)

I think it's coment would be better integrated into Names of the Irish state. (Also, I hope you don't mind me sectioning off this proposal from the one above.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid we are talking about the RoI, why would we section off comments on the RoI? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite remarkable that there hasn't (yet) been a rejection of this beyond the ROI redirect issue. In reality, this is not a sticking point for ultimate goal, which is to find a home for the articles on the island and the state that is agreeable. I would urge editors not to get too hung up on this one issue. If we can get anything near consensus for the other 4 statements we should be very, very close to a resolution. Rockpocket 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If fact, I would even go as far to propose that statement (4) be scratched from the proposal and left for discussion later since it has essentially no impact of where the article for the state would go. Domer was very keen to discuss this on the article page and - the reason why we couldn't - was because it would require moving the article that was already there. Once that is resolved by moving the current contents, the contents of ROI can be discussed without restriction. Rockpocket 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the content at Republic of Ireland? That article is alright, it's just the name that needs to be changed. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is my I sectioned Domer48's proposal off. We can take the two parts separately. If there is consensus to move Republic of Ireland -> Ireland (state) then, after that move, we can discuss whether Republic of Ireland should become something else (be that a redirect to Republic of Ireland Act or a new article about the term). But for now, if there is consensus on everything else, let's solve one bit of our problem at least and have it redirect to Ireland (state) - at least for the period immediately after the move. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lets park it for now! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - I see no emerging consensus of the kind described. I see a consensus about holding a Single Transferrable Vote on Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I support that, completely and unreservedly. I do not favour any process which tries to winnow without STV. And I oppose any attempt to take parts separately. 22:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Also see no emerging consensus. And I'm wondering why Domer's proposed article is ok now, but when I put it in mainspace a week or so ok it first got prod'ed then deleted as a POV fork. What's changed in the meantime...? Bastun 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• GoodDay, Bastun, Evertype, could you please state your detailed objections to the "emerging consensus" in less than 100 words each? Thank you. Tfz 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The current article named Republic of Ireland, is about the independant country called Ireland (the one that broke away from the UK). All I've ever requested (concerning that article) is to change the title to Ireland (state), I've never requested change or gutting out the content. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I can't see any fundamental divergence in what you write, to what many of the other editors who want to move forward, have been writing. Tfz 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Where, here? OK, but, I'm not limiting myself to 100 words. I did see an "emerging consensus" toward a particular type of inclusive poll, with Single Transferable Voting. I supported this, and have also assented to Mooretwin's and Scoláire's comments that we do need to acknowledge that some sort of use of the description Republic of Ireland ought to be used and usable within articles for disambiguation where warranted. I saw a lot of consensus about STV polling. Then I come back and see the rug pulled out from under that, with this new "emerging consensus" where inclusive options (which allow everyone to express their genuine preferences even though it is clear some of those will not end up as chosen options) are being abandoned. This jumps the gun. I object to it. I think Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll should be run, and if some RoI needs to be added to satisfy Mooretwin and Scoláire (who have a point) then that should be considered. (163 words) -- Evertype·✆ 17:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Now there is more stuff below. Tfz, was there any point in my writing my 163 words? -- Evertype·✆ 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a point, and very enlightening. There seems to be a need by some editors to use the string 'Republic of Ireland' as a "proper name", instead of its intended use by the Irish government, who created the term to be used as a "proper adjective". I cannot see any problem with 'republic of Ireland' for disambiguation in certain limited circumstances as you propose, but to allow "Republic of Ireland" onto any sentence where there "might" be disambiguation "needs" in the "subjective opinion" of an editor, is a licence for mammoth and unimaginable disruption at Misplaced Pages. All one has to do is visit Scouting Ireland in order to get a tiny glimpse of that scenario. Tfz 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that Tfz, --Domer48_'fenian' 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not find the word "republic" or "Republic" on Scouting Ireland. I agree that there are some POVs which would wish to "disambiguate" aggressively and I agree that this would be inappropriate. Why? Because there would ALSO have to be an equally aggressive disambiguation to "island of Ireland" if that practice were to be consistent. (Having said that, isn't the legal "description" a proper name? The Act does not say "republic of Ireland", but rather "Republic of Ireland". Let's not be disingenuous.) But what remedy would you propose to the problem of over-use of "Republic of Ireland" as a disambiguator? -- Evertype·✆ 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Again i strongly oppose this idea of creating a new article at Republic of Ireland, i will support the country article being moved to something like Ireland (state) but it will only be on the condition that Republic of Ireland remains a redirect. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

'Republic of Ireland' is a proper adjective, that's why it's capatalised. And as for the Scouting Ireland, did you read the 'talk page stream'. The whole episode was a complete waste of editors' energies, and that scenario can be multiplied by 1,000 by "nailing everything down". Misplaced Pages hasn't worked in the past by nailing everything down, and I can't see anything special in this case to warrant such an extreme stricture. Also, I can't see that Misplaced Pages will be nailed down by any such agreement or package, as every case is quite unique, and there can be no embargo on initiating any changes into the future. It's a non-runner. Tfz 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What will we do next? (polling)

OK, I think this is probably going over old ground, but, since Tzf has closed his proposal above, let's summarise what came out of that discussion with a poll. I think we were close to something in that so let's just take a head count. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid we are moving away from polling and moving towards a solution based on consensus. What we need to do now IMO is have a straw poll to gauge the current consensus. Editors opposed should be asked to outline their objections? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the point of this poll (or "straw poll" if you prefer). It looked like we were close to/had consensus above but that it got lost in the details of discussion. A head count will show if there was a consensus or not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not actually closed, but a step forward on the path to resolving the issue/s. The poll below is a bit elaborate, and a simple straw poll as suggested by Domer would be easier to handle at this stage. Tfz 13:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Snowded 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree below seems a bit elaborate for a straw poll. BigDunc 13:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How could it be simplified? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the poll be handles on one central location rather than on either Ireland or Republic of Ireland, seeing as any proposed moves (or retention of status quo) would effect at least two pages? To put this to bed once and for all, if and when a poll happens, it should also be advertised as widely as possible - including one of those banners you see occasionally when something major is on such as Arbcom elections or the poll on licenising. Bastun 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Where? Here? I don't think participation here is wide enough (even despite being advertised). At least Talk:Ireland is a well visited page. (Talk:Republic of Ireland has as much going for it in that respect but I thought Talk:Ireland would be more "central".) Maybe a subpage of the ArbCom page that led us here?

Agree totally course it should be advertised widely. A big "ArbCom" banners would help. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put together a sample Straw poll which I hope has simplified it? I agree that all decisions should be advertised for imput from the community. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Question A: What will we do next about the page moves?

• Option A1: Place a proposal for the "Ireland/Ireland (state)/Northern Ireland solution" on a subpage of Talk:Ireland and poll on it (if passed, Republic of Ireland will redirect to Ireland (state) at least for the period immediately after the move - we can discuss what to do with Republic of Ireland again afterwards)
• Option A2: Hold a vote by STV (Single transferable vote) of the kind described in rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid sandbox on a sub-page of Talk:Ireland (per comments by Fmph, the exact details of this still need to be written up)
• Option A3: Either Option A1 or Option A2 - either will do!
• Option A4: Neither Option A1 nor Option A2 (please leave a comment when !voting)

Poll on Question A

• Option A3 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A2 ~Asarlaí 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A2 Fmph (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A2 SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A2 -- Evertype·✆ 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A3 Rockpocket 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A2 -MITH 20:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A4 No redirect of ROI to Ireland. BigDunc 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A1 Tfz 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A2, but see comment below (General Comments section) on where it should be run/how it should be advertised. Bastun 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A2 —ras52 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A2 - BritishWatcher (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option A4 - we don't do either of those things until we have a comprehensive solution that includes references in articles. Mooretwin (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Question A

I think its fairest to have a vote with all the options available. ~Asarlaí 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Asarlaí, and I think that Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll is quite comprehensive. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused (my brain is over-loaded). Which of these options would best match my previous comments? GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BugDunc, I don't get what you mean by "No redirect of ROI to Ireland" (probably obvious, but I don't get it). Can you explain? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep it is the obvious ROI should go to the act with a dab to the country. contary to the fine bit of OR by Rock above we don't know what editors are looking for when they type into their search bar so lets educate thats what an encyclopedia does. BigDunc

Ah ... yes ... obvious! Why though did you !vote against Option A1 here but say you would !vote for it below? The option in the poll by Domer48 would also redirect ROI to Ireland (state), no? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is what I have done. BigDunc 10:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the distinction between "The China solution" (with discussion of what to do with ROI left until after the move) and A1 above needs to be explained to me. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Question B: What will we do next about the use of terms in article?

• Option B1: Place a proposal like "Blue-Haired Lawyer's MOS change" at WP:IMOS, advertised it in the usual places and poll on it
• Option B2: Something other than Option B1 (please leave a comment when !voting)

Poll on Question B

• Option B1 --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option B1 ~Asarlaí 09:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option B1 Fmph (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option B1 SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option B1 -- Evertype·✆ 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option B2 Tfz 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option B1 - BritishWatcher (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Option B2 - we don't do something "next" about the use of terms in article: we do it at the same time in order to promote compromise and consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Question B

I'm a tad confused (having a brain fart). Which of these options match my previous comments? GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what your previous comments were. Please study the options; they are pretty clear. -- Evertype·✆ 23:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

which ever method is used to decide this matter, it should be done before any of the articles are moved around following the results of question one. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:POLLING vs WP:CONSENSUS

We’ve had three suggestions which all revolve around what could be called the China solution. It has been broken down by Tfz above into five points, reduced to four leaving discussion on the RoI till we have gained consensus on the other four first. Those who have expressed a positive view for this solution include:

1. We could list the editors who have commented in a positive and supportive way to the suggestion, or
2. Use the support or oppose heading and ask them to sign.
3. We could then do the same with the editors who oppose this solution.

It would look something like this: This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look based on Editors responces.

Support:

• MickMacNee,
• rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid,
• GoodDay,
• Deacon of Pndapetzim,
• Domer48,
• BigDunc 22:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• CarolDonegal,
• Tfz,
• --Snowded 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Asarlaí,
• BritishWatcher,
• De Unionist,
• Mooretwin,
• MITH

I’m not sure whether they support or oppose this solution?

• Bastun
• R.T.G
• Redking7
• Rockpocket
• Evertype

--Domer48'fenian' 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Evertype

I don't know what you are talking about. I would like to see progress made on Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll. I really would. I don't believe we will ever get "consensus" by argument. This has gone on too long. I believe that a vote where people can rank what they CAN support and what they CANNOT support in Single Transferable Voting will lead to a workable solution. -- Evertype·✆ 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is Evertype, consensus is starting to form, and not by argument but by agreement. Now I not two editors did not read my post before they said I was voting on their behalf, maybe if they did they could remove their notes to indicate that they have now read it and were mistaking? I thought this comment on the end This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look" coupled with my comments above would have been enough. --Domer48'fenian' 22:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, no, it is not. It is a vaguely put hint about something you said somewhere about China (indeed your only link is to China, fat lot of help that is to us). There are no specifics. There is no precision. There is therefore no remedy. I don't agree to vague and imprecise "agreements". I want this nailed down, in terms of sets of options that people can rank freely. It's unlikely that anything on the two ends of the spectrum will win out, but there will be genuine remedy to this nightmare. Your sample straw poll was offensive in that you were deciding what people's opinions were, and innocent as you might have thought it, we have seen some people take offence, so don't defend yourself—take the criticism on board. For my part I remain convinced that Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's process is the only one that has a snowball's chance of getting us from here to there. I have seen nothing else which has its merits. -- Evertype·✆ 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Evertype if you were reading the discussions you would have seen it discussed here and that it was Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's suggestion, it's a pity you found the link to the China article a "fat lot of help" a number of us did find it useful. Again if you had been following the discussion you would have noticed that it was Vinny who suggested a Straw Poll which I supported along with editors Tfz, Snowed and BigDunc . rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid asked "How could it be simplified?" so I showed them. So you see it's not "my" Straw Poll, and you may wish to reflect that in you post above. That you found a straw poll offensive, is strange, but far from deciding what editors opinions were, you'll notice I added diff's which expressed their views on the suggestion and not mine. Editors I don't think took offence, they just did not read what I had said. Now please don't feel the need to defend yourself, just correct your criticism of me will be fine. Thanks, and I hope that helps,--Domer48_'fenian' 14:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This all needs to be agreed at once not dealing with one point and then coming back to do the others at a later time, i agree we need a clear set of proposals that everyone is committed to. I only intend to support the renaming of the country article IF Republic of Ireland remains a redirect. Now i dont know what method or process is simple to ensure but some form of vote on all the issues seems more reliable than a written consensus on certain points. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You say "I only intend to support the renaming of the country article IF Republic of Ireland remains a redirect." Can you please be exactly precise as to what you mean? (1) Renaming of the country article to (options here) and (2) redirect to (option here). Ta. -- Evertype·✆ 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article on the country to Ireland (state) i will support only aslong as Republic of Ireland is a redirect to that article. This idea by some to create a new article at republic of ireland talking about an Act i cannot accept. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of polling vs consensus

We have two completely different proposals operating at the minute. One based on polling and the other based on consensus. It’s a very clear choice IMHO as to which one I’d prefer.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If we're lucky, folks? The consensus & polling will come out 'the same'. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

From where I'm standing, the consensus seems to be a poll where someone else places your vote. Fmph (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to explain what you mean? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they are talking about GoodDay with his what will I vote comment above. BigDunc 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see two polls. Both polling on the same thing. Domer48, have you contacted the editors you added to Support/Oppose in "your" poll? There is a natural concern when someone speaks on behalf of someone else that you may not always get it right. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rannpháirtí anaithnid did you even read what I wrote above? "This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look." We could list the editors who have commented in a positive and supportive way to the suggestion, or

Use the support or oppose heading and ask them to sign. We could then do the same with the editors who oppose this solution. Now do you want to remove your comment "Edit: Domer48, please do not !vote on my behalf --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá)" to indicate that you have read it? --Domer48'fenian' 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "Editors can add/remove/or move their names accordingly". Please do not !vote on my behalf in future. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

During a Straw poll editors can "add/remove/or move their names accordingly" Now I've made this nice and bold This is just a sample of how a straw poll would look since you still must not have read it. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I find Option A1, A2 & B1 confusing. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you GoodDay I really can't understand what editors have against the China solution it is simple and straight forward. BigDunc 22:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not clear to me what the "China" solution is at this time, but I don't understand why editors (only Big Dunc, currently) are opposed to the STV option (A2) when it would allow such a proposal to be included. As it stands, it appears you are saying you will not tolerate ROI redirecting to Ireland under any circumstances. That generally isn't how compromise or consensus works. Put your preferred option on the table and, if it is a good solution it will fair well in a STV. Rockpocket 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of making RoI a redirect to the Ireland state article is that RoI will have moved a 'step away', and not be the state article any longer. The next step would be to discuss the contents of RoI article, and secure agreement to remove the redirect. In total, a 'two step' move, that editors would be able to handle more easily, and most here don't deny a 'consensus for change' exists. Tfz 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of this - we should know what a straw poll looks like, surely, without anyone deciding what names to add where. Including the name of a girl who doesn't seem to know the difference between northern Ireland and Northern Ireland after living in Donegal for 4 years. My preference, even though its probably unlikely my preferred option would "win", is a poll conducted under STV. Bastun 22:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you guys think the "China" solution is, please see to it that that option is available in Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll and that should cover it as an option. -- Evertype·✆ 23:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I'm opposed to polling for obvious reasons Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The China solution has been outlined above, re-read the discussion and let us know what you think? Am I correct in thinking you are in favour of WP:POLLING over WP:CONSENSUS? BigDunc has outlined his objections on a RoI redirect, however you ignore comments by Asarlaí, , BritishWatcher, , De Unionist, , Mooretwin, , generally isn't how compromise or consensus works.

Bastun saying that "including the name of a girl who doesn't seem to know the difference between northern Ireland and Northern Ireland after living in Donegal for 4 years" is a bit unfair. Carol seems to know exactly what she is saying, and the confusion with Northern Ireland. How do you feel about an editor, who unlike Carol has been blocked twice in the past number of days and not a wet day in the place? Now I consider progress is being made, Rock, Evertype and Bastun like Snowded, would you like to add your names to the Straw poll sample because I’m not sure weather you support or oppose this solution? Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 07:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Im opposed to the "Britannica" solution where there is asingle article which covers both the island and country. Im not opposed to a setup like China where we have a general article or one on the island which provides a link to the country article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not adding my name to your "straw poll" because it is ill-defined. You have said NOTHING here about what you are polling. You talk about the "China solution" as though it were well defined, yet all you link to is the article on China. This is nonsense. Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's solution is precise, well-defined, and reasonable. Do you oppose it? Why? I already asked for you to cast whatever it is you think "the China solution" is in the terms of Rannṗáirtí's poll, and you just ignored what I said, asking me instead to sign your poll. Why should I? It's a pig in a poke. -- Evertype·✆ 08:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down! The discussion on this solution was outlined above, why not read it? This solution is exactly the same as Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's in the same discussion. It's a simple question, so why not just say No. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm, thanks. You STILL haven't described this "China" solution in any detail. Saying "outlined above" does not tell me what you are talking about. -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you were following the discussion you would have seen it discussed here, although if you simply went to the China article which has been linked throughout the discussion you might have an idea. However if you were following the discussion you would have noticed that it was Vinny who suggested a Straw Poll which I supported along with editors Tfz, Snowed and BigDunc . rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid asked "How could it be simplified?" so I showed them. So you see it's not "my" Straw Poll, and you may wish to reflect that in you post above. Thanks, and I hope that helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer, just so im clear about the china proposal. It is different to the Britannica one isnt it? Because its the Britannica one i find totally unacceptable, but quite like the China one. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's different to the Britannica one, the China solution will include sub-articles on each of the different sections. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is an official term in Eire

I don't blame her, have you ever lived in Donegal? --De Unionist (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems The Republic of Ireland is an official term in Eire

A certain 'young' lady from the Irish Republic previously stated that they don't use the term Republic of Ireland down there! May I point out that they do:-

http://www.education.ie/robots/view.jsp?pcategory=10861&language=EN&ecategory=40244&link=link001&doc=14852

http://www.education.ie/robots/view.jsp?pcategory=17216&language=EN&ecategory=32518&link=link001&doc=29745

http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?p=154&n=254

http://www.nursingboard.ie/en/ab-board_functions.aspx

http://www.limerick.ie/Press/FirstInternationalFootballMatchforLimerick/

http://www.limerick.ie/VisitingLimerick/

http://www.marine.ie/home/aboutus/newsroom/news/fishhealthdirectiveinformationforshellfishproducers.htm

http://www.revenue.ie/revsearch/search.jsp

...and I particularly point out the following:- "Individual applicants must have been born in, or be resident in, the Republic of Ireland. ‘Residency’ is based upon the following definition used by the Revenue Commissioners (in which Ireland means the Republic of Ireland)" http://www.artscouncil.ie/en/fundInfo/funding_faqs.aspx.

Seems her country-folk differ in their outlook! --De Unionist (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Seems her country-folk differ in their outlook!" Agree with everything else but, just on that point, I believe the contributor was English - and, while she may have been a little geographically challenged, the general spirit of her contribution (that no-one really makes that big of a difference between "Irelands" unless they have to e.g. like to say what jurisdiction a person is resident in for tax purposes) is accurate of reality. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

They may not do so in the south but they do in the north. Out of curiosity, how do natives from say Dublin, Cork or Athlone refer to Northern Ireland in general conversation and formally? --De Unionist (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that it is verified that Ireland means the 'The Republic of Ireland' when properly referring to the 26 counties of the country, can we now seek a solution that gives such its proper place within the Ireland article. --De Unionist (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"They may not do so in the south but they do in the north." It was (from what he/she wrote) an English woman that made the comments you are referring to.

"Out of curiosity, how do natives from say Dublin, Cork or Athlone refer to Northern Ireland in general conversation and formally?" The North (capitalise or decapitalise at your preference) or Northern Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just the reverse up here in Northern Ireland, we refer to all things in the 26 counties as 'The South'. --De Unionist (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Just the reverse up here..." Quel surprise. You're at the other end of an island!Template:Joking --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Outdent Are you aware that "in Eire" seems to be deliberately offensive? In the Irish language, the correct grammar is "in Éireann"; in English, this translates as "in Ireland". Thank you for your consideration.

There is certainly alot of justification for having Republic of Ireland contain the information about the country. Be that directly or as a redirect to where ever the article gets moved for. I see very little justification for having Republic of Ireland cover the Act or something along those lines. If i was to be looking for the country, i would look up Republic of Ireland because thats how most people know it here. (rightly or wrongly). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be perfectly honest about this. Naming the state by RoI is peculiar to sections in Britain. So that is a POV, no doubt. We have been over this so often, let's not start all this again. I think we need the moderator to tell us not to be ploughing the same ground again and again and again. Tfz 13:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree Tfz, we can address this issue later as suggested by Rock. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise let's move on and deal with that another time. BigDunc 14:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry i find that unacceptable, we cant move on leaving a very important point about what happens with Republic of Ireland as has been mentioned before, if we are to get agreement we need the full package at once, we cant just put off debating about certain matters to another time. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Was this discussion not supposed to be all about Ireland island, Ireland country. So why is it about the RoI article now? What has RoI got to do with this discussion? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Alot because thats where the article on the country currently is. Ofcourse if the country article gets moved what happens to ROI must be decided as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The RoI article would then be freed up for proper editing. Naturally it would define the origin of the term RoI, and why the RoI 1948 Act was brought into law, and other instances of the term etc. Tfz 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland is not the same as the Republic of Ireland Act. If this is all going to be put to the vote then the future of the ROI must be included and i think quite a few people support the ROI being a redirect, short term or long term. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And ROI is not the same as Ireland. BigDunc 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ROI is name used for the country Ireland. I know this is very hard for some people to accept but its true. Looking up ROI is far more likely to be looking for the country than some information on the Republic of Ireland Act. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that? It is OR you can not say what readers are looking for. BigDunc 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone typing in "Republic of Ireland" is looking for information on the state. Otherwise they'd type in "Republic of Ireland Act" or "Republic of Ireland Act 1948". In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is a pretty safe assumption that they're not looking for information on legislation from the middle of the last century. Bastun 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Then lets inform them ROI is not the name of the country and should not be used as if it were no matter what british pov pushers want. BigDunc 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nearly everyone looking for the state will type in Ireland, and those are the true facts. Everyone knows the state as Ireland because that's what it is. Just look up Google, the vast majority of the hits link to the state. Tfz 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

lmao Tfz, look up Republic of Ireland. Do the vast majority of results talk about the state or the 1948 Act? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is being stated as fact by a number of editors that when people type ROI they are looking for Ireland this is not proven and is OR, plain and simple. BigDunc 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A humble suggestion from your moderator

We're going back in circles again; no one is going to easily change anyone's mind about what is the "right" way to name these articles, and while I can guess what a consensus point will be, it is impossible to read for sure based on the amount of noise being generated.

I am going to suggest the following:

• Stage 1: Prepare the Single transferable vote ballot that will address two questions; one is basically as already spelled out on User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid/sandbox for what the island and 26-county state are to be named, and the second one to ask how should the 26-county state be called when it appears in article text but may possibly be confused with other meanings of the word "Ireland" - (basically with choices of "state of Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland"). I feel any other questions on this ballot at this time will be too difficult to address or are better suited to discussion after these two core issues are resolved. Unless there are any major objections to this step, I would like to see this completed by June 21, 2009 (We've been going over this enough, thus this is to try to get a time scale here).
• Stage 2: STV Polling. STV polling on the above ballot will be open for 3 weeks (this allows it to go before and after US's Independence Day holiday). It will be announced at WP:VPP, WP:CENT, any ireland-related project and wherever else it should be listed. This would close this poll on July 12, 2009.
• Stage 3: Vote evaluation. I believe that this can be done by the moderators but if someone has a problem, we can seek an involved admin to help. STV makes it rather simple but let's say this takes a week, so by July 19, 2009, we'll have the results.
• Stage 4: Additional resolutions. The naming issue is 95% of the problems here. Other issues, like exactly when the 26-county state has to be resolved in article text, where ROI should redirect to (assuming it is not used by the winning vote result), what boundaries on content there should be if one of the "Brittanica" solutions are picked, etc. - these all depend on how the naming vote ends up, and doesn't make sense to talk about those under at this time. I think most of these can be done in a month without resorting to polling, so let's call this that by the end of August 2009 this project would have done its job of figuring out naming issues wrt to the island and country as much as we can expect to complete.

I think we need focus and while I don't want to force this project to go this way, I will point out that I've been watching everyone seem to approach to agree on a means forward and then suddenly break down. I don't know if everyone is amenable to a moderator-supported path forward, but here's my plan, so I'd like to know if there are any serious objections to the plan itself. (If you have an issue with the ballot or the like, that's a different issue). --MASEM (t) 16:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Bastun 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support —ras52 (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Whilst i support the vast majority of the above suggestion, i can not support the idea of putting off certain matters until after the main issues have been decided. The issue of what happens to the Republic of Ireland article must be written into the voting options. I can only support renaming the article on the country IF it means ROI will become a redirect.. this really is a core issue and should be included in the main vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If the vote points to a choice where the state is not at ROI, then yes, it will need to be a redirect. Of which article, that point will need determined but I do not be it is a critical factor at this point to wait for a vote to progress. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where ROI leads could be included in the main vote, this is a very important point which needs working out at the same time as there are several people above arguing for the creation of a new article on the term ROI or having it about the 1948 Act. If we put this off until after, then it could take a long time to get consensus on this matter. We should be able to choose like a sub option. 1) - Move country to Ireland state, 1a)- Republic of Ireland redirects to Ireland state, 1b) Republic of Ireland as a new article, 1c) Republic of Ireland rediects to Republic of Ireland Act. The Future of the ROI article is very important. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose oppose. The issue of redirects is very minor, not at all central as BW maintains. Once we know where the articles are, we'll know what to point to them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First, the only strongly supported alternative name for the 26-county state seems to be "Ireland (state)" if ROI is not used, and to simplify matters, I personally believe that this option (as opposed to any other "Ireland (something)" name) is supported by other examples across WP, so any other possible names outside of "Ireland (state)" and "ROI" are unlikely to have sufficient support to be possible options. Now, if the country goes to "Ireland (state)", then we have to consider the fate of "ROI" which is fine in the 4th stage. But inserting what its fate may be in the current poll is adding just too much complexity to the issue. One thing I will add: I will urge no name changes on articles until Stage 4 is complete - in other words, if the vote is for "Ireland (state)", no one should move the current "Republic of Ireland" there until all aspects are closed and everything done in one mass block at least in terms of article names. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support --Snowded 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Masem all you keep doing is proposing a VOTE. WP:POLLING is not a solution. You have done nothing to encourage or promote a solution based on WP:CONSENSUS. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If I had confidence from what I've read and seen happen here that a consensus could be formed, I would be channeling the discussion that way. However, it is very clear that there are at least two camps, if not several other isolated editors, that will make coming to consensus nearly impossible and an extremely drawn out process. I don't think anyone wants to be here until December still arguing the core points. A vote in this case, as long as it is consensus-agreed to be done, is an acceptable replacement for actually trying to build consensus where it will likely never happen. I will admit that the vote could end in a stalemate or "none of the above" type option meaning that more consensus is needed, but I don't believe that will happen. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a sample Straw Poll above, showing editors moving away from long held positions. Now a couple of editors have not expressed an opinion yet. Why not ask their opinions on the proposed solution? It would help clarify things a bit and sure that would not hurt the process. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - As I'm basically willing to accept nearly any solution. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone who has objections to the process the moderator chooses to determine consensus go re-read Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Motions. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Republic of Ireland Act 1948