Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 23 April 2006

Archive

Archive 1 (up to mid-Sept 2004), Archive 2 (mid-end Sept 2004), Archive 3 (1st 3 weeks October), Archive 4 (21st Oct - 7th Nov), Archive 5 (Nov 04 - Jan 05), Archive 6 (Feb 05), Archive 7 (Mar 05 - Apr 05), Archive 8 (May 05), Archive 9 (May 05 - Sep 09), Archive 10 (Sep 05 - Nov 05), Archive 11 (Nov 05 - Feb 06)

Active Irish Wikipedians userbox

I dislike the use of the so-called "St Patrick's cross" -- neither well-known nor widely acceptable as a symbol for Irishness (see also Template talk:User Ireland) -- and the wording ("This user comes from Ireland"): it has always been made clear that Active Irish Wikipedians do not have to "come from" Ireland in order to be able to nominate themselves as such. -- Picapica 11:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I also don't like that flag either, living in England a red cross on a white background is far from irish related (even if it is rotated from the st georges cross). However, there seems to be confusion between "lives in" (User Ireland) and "decended from" (User Irish) However, I don't think Irish decent should have the flag of the rebublic, Irish descent can cover more than that both in location, and time. I see User Ireland has been removed from the list of userboxes, I think it should be returned under User RepIreland, with the flag of the rebublic. England, scotland, wales and NI all have individual userboxes, so it's more consistant to have a RepIreland one too, rather than trying to create an all ireland one, with the chaos that will bring.

My suggestion would be:

• Locations
  • User NI - Means "lives in NI", as is. (sim for england,scotland, wales, france, etc)
  • User RepIreland, means "lives in RepIreland" - Flag as User Irish, change phrasing to mean lives in Rep.
  • User Ireland - depreciate? (or if kept, outline of island) When you think about it, location wise, it makes as much sense as having "user Iberian Peninsula", which also covers several countries.
• Ancestory / Culture / etc
  • User Irish - Neutral icon (outline of island is good, imo)

Comments? MartinRe 13:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If people want to let others know in which country they are currently domiciled, fine. What concerns me is that since I added my name "Active Irish Wikipedians" seems to have acquired two categories of membership:

Category:Irish Wikipedians This category is for Wikipedians who are Irish, are of Irish ancestry, or who are part of the Irish Wikipedians' notice board, but not necessarily living in Ireland (for which is used Category:Wikipedians in Ireland).

versus

Category:Wikipedians in Ireland Wikipedians who live in or are associated with Ireland, and other participants in the Irish Wikipedians' notice board. For those who are Irish but aren't living in Ireland, you can use Category:Irish Wikipedians.

Is this really what we want? -- Picapica 13:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say I think it's still all a little confused. I agree with Picapica, I think you should be able to add domicile and ancestry/interest separately. I'm not familiar enough with how the cats work to figure it out, but my understanding on how it should work is something like:

• User Ireland Republic (just created) - lives in RoI, added to Category Wikipedians in Ireland (Why isn't there a sub cat for Wikipedians in Republic of Ireland?)
• User Irish - Irish interest/ancestory, added to Category Irish Wikipedians.

Also, as User Ireland is a location, I think the comment at the top of the page should ask people to add "User Irish", not "user Ireland". However, user Irish needs a more neutral icon, for that to be broadly acceptable. MartinRe 13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes and Categories

To simplify things, I'm making a list of what my understanding of the userbox/categories, please correct/comment here.

• Locations:
  • User Ireland - user is domiciled in Ireland (NI +rep). Adds user to category of Wikipedians in Ireland
  • User NI - user is domiciled in NI. Adds user to category of Wikipedians in Nothern Ireland
  • User Ireland Republic - user is domiciled in Republic of Ireland. Adds user to category of Wikipedians in Rebubic of Ireland.
• Ancestory/interest
  • User Irish - user has irish ancestory/interest. Addes user to category of Irish Wikipedians.

If this is the case, the following would need to be done.

• Ensure User Ireland and User Irish have netural icon. (the latter has the tricolour right now)
• Create cat for Wikipedians in Rebubic of Ireland.
• Ensure all cats are added to the correct userbox. and not any extra ones.
• change the above page to invite people interested, but not resident, in Ireland to add User Irish.

Problems with the above include:

• Changing the icon would impact on people using User Irish (about 120)
• Would some people prefer subsets of irish ancestry pointing to NI and RoI?
• Should there be a separate userbox for User Irish Interest?

Does the above make sense? MartinRe 13:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright free Gaelic football pictures

• 1 http://www.st-vincents-toronto-gaa.com/images/2005%20Season/IMGP1397.JPG
• 2 http://torontogaa.homestead.com/files/020523gailic01b.jpg
• 3 http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a180/cicfada/55.jpg
• 4 http://www.st-vincents-toronto-gaa.com/images/2005%20Season/IMGP1316.JPG
• 5 http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a180/cicfada/football2.jpg
• 6 http://www.st-vincents-toronto-gaa.com/images/IMGP1600.JPG

I think 3 is the best any comments before i submit? 6 is also nice but doesnt feature any major teams (Gnevin 21:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, 3 is the best. What page are you submitting them to. The main GAA page?.--Play Brian Moore 02:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing aginst canada, love toronto, but 3 and 6 are clearly the best of the 6. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I submitted 3 to the gaelic football page , is their need for it on the main page? (Gnevin 13:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Celtic law

I found a Celtic law article in the course of doing some work on the Welsh law article. As it stands it only deals with Ireland and covers the same ground as the Brehon law article. Would it be better to merge this material (if it is reliable) into the Brehon law article and then rewrite "Celtic law" to discuss similarities and differences between the Irish and Welsh laws and add any information available (not much) about Celtic law in Gaul etc? Rhion 12:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have requested that the Celtic law article be merged into the Brehon Laws article. Contribute at Talk:Brehon Laws. Rhion 21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Category: Gaelic sport grounds

Why isn't this a category? Shouldn't this be the main category with the sub categories such as Category:Gaelic sport grounds in Republic of Ireland and Category:Gaelic sport grounds in Northern Ireland ?
Grounds such as Gaelic Park aren't even categorized as a Gaelic ground (Gnevin 14:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Agree - consider being bold and creating yourself. Guliolopez 18:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not so much a matter of being bold but lack of know how but i'll try figure it out now (Gnevin 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Thats my fault, i dont know whay i didnt creat the cateegory, not thinking i suppose, sorry. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted - Hogan Cup

(For those not aware, the Hogan Cup is the Gaelic football championship for secondary schools thoughout the island of Ireland. named after the brother of the chap who the hogan stand is named after). I'm looking for the ISBN of the book Fifty Years of the Hogan Cup by Gerry Buckley. I'm trying to fill out the results over the years, which is proving slow. (the results I do have, can be cited, if need be, but I'd prefer to add one source (even off-line) than dozens of web pages, which I have now (but not yet added to the article, but can be). Ideas? MartinRe 23:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Any interest in reviving Collaboration of the month/week

I see the Collaboration of the month has been unchanged for quite some time, I see about a year ago it used to be a weekly one. Is there any interest in reviving this, or failing that, shouldn't the notice on the top be removed? MartinRe 16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the notice for the time being. However, I think it would be a nice idea to revive this, so will bring the the collaboration pages up to date, and re-insert the image when done, and see what happens. If it creates interest, great, if not, nothing lost. MartinRe 20:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Help Wanted: Irish Dál Riada

I'm trying to redo Dalriada, but I am struggling on the Irish part. I went through Byrne's Irish Kings and High-Kings and Ó Cróinín's Early Medieval Ireland, but I can't find any mention of the eventual fate of Dál Riada in Ireland. Does anyone know what happened to it, and when ? And can you cite a source for the info :-) Feel free to leave comments here, or on my talk page. (But be warned, some day I'll run out of Pictish, Dalriadan and Alban kings to fiddle with, so by helping me now you might be encouraging me to write articles on Irish kings sooner rather than later.) Thanks in advance ! Angus McLellan 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

County Kildare

A user, Ecorry (talk • contribs) created a separate page on the county history, County Kildare history. With the main County Kildare lacking, I was thinking of merging the two, figure I run the idea by see what the thoughts were, and at least let someone give the article a once over, before tagging it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also guessing that he put up an article about himself as well, see: Eoghan Corry. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Eoghan Corry seems quite factual, and he's on the right side of borderline notable, but would vanity rules be enough to justify moving the page to User:Ecorry? Posting up your CV, even if it is respectable, is a bit much, but at the same time he deserves to be welcomed and encouraged. BrendanH 21:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it {{Notable Wikipedian|Ecorry}} yesterday. Seems kinda notable, though it's a bit vain :-) - Ali-oops 21:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Support a merge even though it seems like not all of the County Kildare history is really Kildare history, but about County Kildare in general and the current info could be grouped into several larger sections if re-titled. If it is merged with County Kildare then some of the sentences should be moved to the appropriate town article rather then padding this article. Besides that, there are way too many wikilinks to the same pages, like Naas. I can't help with many of the facts but seems pretty decent if there were some references added after merging. ww2censor 04:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold on - these two articles should definitely be selectively merged, but not completely. There is too much information in County Kildare History to simply be pasted into County Kildare and elsewhere - much better to take what is not relevant to the former (ie lots of it), and move to the latter, as well as writing a synopsis in the history section of County Kildare. I also recommend we move County Kildare History to History of County Kildare (or possibly History of Kildare) to conform with normal style guidelines. Cormaggio 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the history article is very long and would overwhelm the main county article without any well though out strategy. In any case, as Boothy443 alludes to, Misplaced Pages:Merging and moving pages would have to be heeded to as this is not a voting page, so both the main county and history articles need to be tagged prior (and gain consensus) to any merger. Djegan 17:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And as per the discussion on going, i am going to tag the page. Also i am not saying that a merger needs to be a full merge, though i do frown upon of splitting out a section of an article completely to a new article with a see also or main article reference in the article of origin either (though this is not really the case, the idea is similar). I think the current article needs a go over, and once that is done, depending on the length of the article, then an idea of how much of the article should be merged into the County Kildare article should be decided on. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actucally i am going to back down on the tagging for now, depending on how the editing goes. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Gaelic Games

It has been suggested to me over on the Talk:Dublin GAA . That i set up a project wiki for gaelic games , is their any interest in this ? It would need at least 5 to sign up before it would be worth while any takers?(Gnevin 18:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Being the person who brought it up, you have at least one. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The project is now up and running, though it is still in the building stages. If anyoyne would like to help out or contrbute feel free to do so and add you name if you like, you wolnt be held to anything if you sign up. Project can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Gaelic Games, also some usere might also recive a welcome msg from me to joij the project, i will be msg users that have done work on the various GAA related pages. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User:WildIrishman

Just a heads up on this user. Came across him a couple of days ago, but he didn't really ramp up his edits to yesterday. Seems to be interested in Norther Ireland subjects, epically those concerning County Armagh. Apparently this user like to remove comments from discussion pages, remove references to Irish names, as well as remove references to the Catholic church (which seems strange considering his userpage). He has at least sparked the watch of other users as well. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ecorry and GAA

Ecorry (talk • contribs) has added a Bibliography of books to Gaelic_Athletic_Association which contains main books writen by Eoghan Corrysurely this has past the line of vanity to advertisting. Also i would like to direct your attention too his (talk page and too the numberious comment i have made which he has ignored. His additions to wiki, while full of information are unformatted and full of pov see Laois GAA , Kildare GAA and most of his contribs .

(Gnevin 17:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC))
Ps it took me 2 hours to add categorys to Kildare GAA clubs and he still refuses to use the category . I often feel i am babysitting him, he is the only user i have to check his contibs daily (Gnevin 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC))

Active Irish Wikipedians

Is there an administrator (etc.) who adds people to the Active Irish Wikipedians' list or do I do it myself? —CliffHarris (-T|C-) 23:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Add yourself. Djegan 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

the (re)naming of Category:Northern Ireland people

is up for debate at Categories for deletion and renaming, for those interested. Mayumashu 08:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Irish beer is "British"?

Please see Cfd discussion:

• Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Beer_categories

Also, why is Category:Irish breweries categorised under Category:British breweries? --Mais oui! 11:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It is no longer. I've changed the cat to Category:Europe Beer and breweries. Blackcap (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Note the category rename is from Irish breweries to Beer and breweries in the Republic of Ireland. Should we push for this to be Beer and breweries in Ireland? BrendanH 15:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends if the importance lies in the political entity or the geographical area. I don't know much about the subject (apart from how to drink it, heh heh), so I'd take objections on the Irish beer title to either WP:BEER or the above deletion discussion. Blackcap (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Back-translated "Irish names"J

Just a quick informal request for comments here. On the articles of a number of Irish people, notably polticians, there are "Irish names". I' ve got a proposition about these:

These are, 95% of the time, back-translations. As such they serve no purpose, they give a "made-up" name for a person. We're on the English language Misplaced Pages, and hence if someones name is English, that should be the only version given. When someone was actually named in Irish ([[Éamon Ó Cuív), the English translations should be given but as a secondary.

Using back-translated names is, in my eyes, in no way different than making up names for people in other languages. We wouldn't have the French, German or Italian translations of someones name if their name was in English.

Any comments? --19:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a good point, not just for people but also organisations. But with regard to people I think it would not be unreasonable to expect that a citable source is given in the case of contentious translations. Fundementally, we must ask ourselves is wikipedia the only source for a translation and if it is this maybe a form original research, and thus disallowed. Djegan 19:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If the Misplaced Pages is the only source of a back-translation, its deletable straight away as original research. For other cases it comes in as not being in English, in my opinion. --Kiand 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

While i agree that for the most part back translations should not be used, i think that the idea presents a potential problem. The idea being that if we push the English first proposal their are users who will, to but in the softest language possible, misinterpret the idea that is being proposed and will extend the scope of the idea and potentially remove the Irish language representation of other things that do have legitimacy, i.e. place names, or begin to move articles that are still referd to their Irish name officially even in the English language to a preferred English translation of the name. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 19:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but placenames have legal Irish versions, thank you Mr O'Cuiv... human names do not. Leaving the "randomly use Irish and get away with it" door open leads us to another potential Mac Duach situation - a user who was changing English language placenames to Irish and Irish -only- because "people use them". --Kiand 19:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

True, and i fully support the departments effort on that subject, a subject that i will need to readdress in reference the 3 administrative counties of Co Dublin and how they are used in their respective articles infoboxes. Then we need to set a "use of Irish" standard for all articles. Something like:

• The name of an article should only be titled in Irish if it is referred to as such normally in the English Language.
• The Irish translation of a name should be included in an if the Irish name has official status or historical significance to the article in question. (This would most effect orgs and places)
• The Irish translation of a personal name should only be included if the that translation has been used to describe the person in question in the English language.

It's a bit basic, but. Anyway now that i think about it the times that i have herd Nuacht on Radio1 they normally refer to the English name of people and not an Irish translation. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We have a Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) and any firm decisions here can be added to it, discussion may be required on the manuals talk page. Djegan 20:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with adding a mention their, though as a group i think it would be for the best to come up prpopsal here that we could take as a "perfered" option ot the MOS. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Matter of fact it is all pretty much already mentioned their, with the exteption of back translations and standard translations. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Issues with population information

In the process of adding the new-ish {{Infobox Irish Place}} i have encountered problems with population numbers being inconstant between what is listed in some of the older infoboxes, what is listed in the article, what is listed on List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/Largest 100, and what is reported by the CSO, specifically using the population information found here. Problem is that the number rarely match up, some of the population numbers use just that if the city proper, other used the city proper and environs, other use a town/rural designation that even when combined does not match the either the city proper or proper and environs (and is a bit confusing with out having to explain what the difference is between the two. My thing is that we should decide on a standard data set and then use that data set as the basis of population figures within the republic, i would push for the data that is listed in the external link above, thoughts? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What may of happened is that I think that estimatess may have being initially released very early after the census and these are still around. Missunderstandings between city and city+environ is an ongoing issue, even among Irish wikipedians. But agreed that we need to draw the statistics from one source. I want to read up on this in the next day or so. Djegan 11:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if we take data from any source i would think the best place would be CSO, being that they are the ones charged with the census, and the compiling of staticits, the matter is the data set to be used, and what kind of def we are going to use. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the best source is Volume 1- Population Classified by Area - Entire Volume (PDF 643KB). Table 1 is best for cities and counties, whilst Table 12 gives an alphabetical list of towns and their populations (its worth noting this includes "towns" without a legal boundary, for towns Table 7 maybe even more useful as it gives a list of town populations in the legal boundary and suburb/environ areas). Also its worth noting Census 2006 occures on April 23rd, peliminary results available within three months, final results within two years. . So this is an additional consideration. Djegan 23:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to really look over it but i gave it a quick glance and i have an idea how they compiled their stats, i think that the document might be the best source to use. As for the new census, i would say that we should hold off on make any decisions based on it being that we not sure exactly what data is going to be provided in the peliminary results. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ireland on Extraordinary rendition map

Those interested in Irish involvement in extraordinary rendition due to the movement of CIA planes through Shannon please comment on the inclusion of said island on said map here at Image talk:ExtRenditionMap.gif. Blackcap (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts

These ideas relate to the notice board only and not to any specific articles. I have been think that we should consider creating a redirect for Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Ireland to here. Reason being is that the notice board has effectively served as a de-facto wikiproject for Ireland and related subjects, also it would lessen the chance of a disaffected user creating an project that would "compete" with the notice board. Also would increase the projection of the NB. Thoughts?

The other thing would be the news section on the front page. It seems to be getting a bit long. Would recommend that it would be archived, possibly on a monthly basis. If done on a monthly basis would recommend that the previous months news be archived mid-way threw the current month, as so that news posted at the end of the month would still be in the current section as it would more then likely be active. I also came across a template, similar to the to do, that would move it off the page to a similar page to free up space on the front page. Thoughts?

I have no problem with doing the work, will take some time, but figure i pass it by the NB before making any of these changes. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hearty agreement with your sentiments. On the topic of other pages competing with the NB, we already have that to an extent with WP:NIWNB. Because, in all fairness, that page more or less posts entirely things that could be posted here. What ends up happening is people just cross-post half of the messages, and the other half is segregated away from other users who might be interested. I honestly don't understand why that was created. Blackcap (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well thats something you'll have to addres to them, i cant answer for them. As for the ideas that i have proposed, since their have been no objections i am going to proceede over the weekened putting it all together. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Republican Socialist Movement

I stubled accross this article, will someone, who knows what it's supposed to be about, check this article remove POV etc. It may be a bit like the Political landscaping and urban design in Ireland article. theKeith 22:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Seems to be a POV fork of Irish Republican Socialist Movement. I've redirected it. Demiurge 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NIWNB

I've proposed the removal of the NI noticeboard, comments are welcome at Misplaced Pages talk:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board#Questioning the validity of this NB. Blackcap (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed Sockpuppetry on Ireland-related articles

It has been discovered on WP:RFCU that Bluegold (talk · contribs), MacPhersonAndy (talk · contribs), An-gabhar (talk · contribs), Bel air (talk · contribs), Raspitin (talk · contribs) , No More POV Please (talk · contribs), and River run (talk · contribs) are all socks. Bluegold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in sockpuppetry to further the wikipedian strength of his POV on Scottish and Irish related articles.. All except Bluegold have been permanently blocked, and Bluegold himself has been blocked for 24 hours. Moreover, Sea horn (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock, but may be just, if Bluegold was telling the truth on the investigation page, Bluegold's work colleague trying to help him out. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regional Wikipedian notice boards