Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 19 August 2012 (→Amendment requested for 'The Troubles' Arbitration remedies; input welcome: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WT:IE
• WT:IWNB

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Ireland and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

WikiProject Ireland September 2006-August 2007 September 2007-January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 1 April 2008-17 April 2008 April 2008-September 2008 October 2008-December 2008 January 2009-April 2009 May 2009-July 2009 August 2009-October 2009 November 2009-September 2010 September 2010-March 2011 March 2011-June 2011 June 2011-Nov 2011 Nov 2011- Irish Wikipedians' notice board August 2004-September 2004 September 2004 October 2004 21st October - 7th November 2005 November 2004 - January 2005 February 2005 March 2005-April 2005 May 2005 May 2005-September 2009 September 2005-November 2005 November 2005-February 2006 February 2006-April 2006 April 2006-August 2006 August 2006-November 2006 November 2006-February 2007 February 2007-July 2007 August 2007-October 2007 Oct 07-Early/Mid Nov 07 November 2007 November 2007-February 2008 March 2008-April 2008 Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board February 2006-July 2006 April 2006-November 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Edit this box

Éire

Is it really neccessary having Éire as a separate article, would it not be wiser merging Éire with Ireland? Sheodred 20:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Éire should be summarised in an etymology section in Ireland IMO. --RA (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Please leave it alone. Please, oh, please, oh please, leave it alone. -- Evertype·✆ 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with a summary in the etymology section. Sheodred 23:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Ireland.--KarlB (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but really it must be merged to Republic of Ireland because Éire is the state's name. Oh, but you can't do that either because it is both the Irish name of the state and the name of the island!!! Drat, who needs more problems? Another hot potato issue. ww2censor (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Stupid to merge, Éire has been the name for 2,000+ years, Republic of Ireland for 63 years, many Éire-linked concepts just do not overlap with ROI and never will. How can you explain why the Eire Society of Boston is so called on the ROI page?Red Hurley (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Please leave it alone. Please, oh, please, oh please, leave it alone. -- benzband (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Eamon De Valera

Due to temporary restrictions in place I am prohibited from editing on articles relating to the "Troubles" and nationality due to my deplorable and regrettable past-behaviour, unfortunately De Valera is included, however I am merely seeking input as to whether a .separate article based on factual criticism and controversies on Eamon De Valera is warranted is there seems to be an absence of such? Sheodred 23:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have separate point of view articles on a topic,, see Misplaced Pages:Content forking Dmcq (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles that deal specifically with Criticism of..., etc. are not necessarily content or POV forks. For example Criticism of postmodernism is not a fork of Postmodernism.

I'm not so sure one is merited in this case. For example, there isn't yet a Criticism of... section in the article that could be spun out to create a new article. --RA (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq I am sure you aware that there are plently of articles that are dedicated as a critical analysis of subjects where relevant and as RA stated that does not automatically make them POV articles. Anyway to respond to RA..that is what I mean, it is really surprising there is section/critique based on the negative implications De Valera's policies/ideology/actions/politics had in a social and political context. Sheodred 08:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles should be on notable things, if they were notable enough there would be quite a bit in his article already. Just develop the Eamon de Valera article and if the whole article gets too large see if either there is some trivia to remove or a subsection which is notable in itself too split off. There is a bit of criticism of him in the overview section but really I don't see any traction for a separate notability of criticisms. I note a number of good things he did are not there either, like the way he insisted that a number of religions always be represented at official dedications rather than just Catholics, the way he tried to offer a place to Jews in Ireland before the second world war when they were being persecuted in Germany and his continued support for science and education in Ireland. So I can't say I view a special article dedicated to just criticising him with favour. Dmcq (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not unless you're going to balance with a 'In praise of..' section. In practice, all the "good" and "bad" things about him should be mentioned but worked into the relevant section of the article. Snappy (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his critics were usually his political opponents, and his supporters were (yawn) his political supporters, so what would a new article prove either way? Nothing unique in that, it was ever thus.Red Hurley (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Camp, County Kerry

Well I just created this article, I was wondering if anyone could check it out for me? (I have to admit I "burrowed" a lot of the templates ie stub and places in Kerry, from other articles, will learn them off by heart someday!) --Éamonn Cálraighe (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking good! I've added an infobox and an extra reference. Also, the WikiProject Ireland banner on the talkpage (this goes on all Ireland-related articles): {{WikiProject Ireland|class=|importance=}}. benzband (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll certainly keep all that in mind if I create any more articles! --Éamonn Cálraighe (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Spurious Gaelic speakers statistics

Unregistered user Taoiseach has been littering county and province articles with dubious statistics about Gaelic speakers. Do they even check out? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You could try engaging with the user first on his talk page, before coming here. Snappy (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at his talk page, he does not seem to have replied to any comments. That's why I thought that I might get guidance from colleagues on what to do with a rash of things that look like unsuported OR that's bordering on vandalism. But thanks for the considered input nonetheless. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final articles

We have articles on every single All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final game since 1887, such as 1923 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final. 86.40.104.30 recently requested a batch of redirects to every single one of those articles for the 1990s at WP:AFC/R, and I expect by analogy he'll also request the redirects for the earlier years. That amounts to 660 redirects, and to be honest, I'm too lazy to create them (I did create the 60 redirects for the 2000s). Those articles seem pretty much boilerplate with a template and at most two sentences of original content per article, backed up by the very same source for all pre-1999 articles. I wonder wether we'd be better off by merging them all into a single list.

There's a similar collection of articles on the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final, such as 1973 All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship Final (and yes, that's another 660 redirects), but those articles seem to have more content, though many of them don't give their sources. I have no idea what to do about those. We already have List of All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship finals, but that has less information than the idividual articles. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just because there is less information available for those online doesn't make them any less notable. I don't think anyone would hear of merging all the FA Cup or AFL Grand Finals into a single list so why for any equivalent? The information to expand them exists - this just clearly hasn't been done for all of them yet, as you've pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.104.30 (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As per the Hurling Championship, a list wouldn't hurt even if we keep the individual Football Championship Final articles. But currently we could merge all the pre-1999 football articles into a list without losing any information whatsoever - what little individual information we have on each game would fit into a "notes" column. For comparison, some of the early FA Cup articles are much too large and too well-sourced to be merged, see for example 1876 FA Cup Final. Huon (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a database of indiscriminate information see WP:IINFO "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Also as the third section there says " articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." and " omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely."

If people want to set up an article they should show notability for each article with a citation and have some actual secondary source material to put into it. The article on the 1973 one for instance would be okay if it actually had some citations for the various bits in it but it doesn't. The earlier ones are just total rubbish with no secondary source justification or content never mind not having any citations. They are just database entries plus a copy of the team colours and who can actually say that even those are right for the time and weren't changed in between?Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a very sweeping generalisation. Not all the pre-1999 finals are "backed up by the very same source" or "total rubbish" as claimed above. I've gone through most of them to check their status. How would you go about merging 1983 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final for example? It's far too long and has only recently been merged from another article covering the same material. It's poorly sourced at the moment but that's no excuse for merging.

The idea that 1992 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final and 1993 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (won for the first, and so far only, time by Donegal and Derry) are somehow less notable than Kerry's umpteenth wins in the 2000s, for such reasons as having occurred before Misplaced Pages existed or before the web was widely used, is also ridiculous. As is the fact that this entire discussion is taking place due to the OP being by their own admission "too lazy" to create some redirects. As is the suggestion that any of the finals which did not take place in the 21st century be merged, while the 21st century finals be kept. There is no great difference between the state of the articles that occurs around 2000.

By the way, 1999 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final now has more sources than the 1876 FA Cup Final held up as the standard to be reached. Why then should it be merged for happening to have occurred before the 21st century began? 1887 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final shouldn't be too badly sourced now either, considering it was the 19th century and how most of the relevant information will be offline. Many of the others, barring a few exceptions at this point, should now have more than one source as well. Also, with books like this in existence covering "the story of the football championship every year since Limerick won the first All-Ireland Football Final in 1887", it shouldn't be too difficult to expand all of them. If someone went to the bother of merging them there is a real possibility that they would be unmerged again in the future anyway.

Finally, per WP:SPORTSEVENT, which hasn't been mentioned so far,

Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following: The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, e.g. 2009 Stanley Cup Finals, or 2009 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final, or Super Bowl XLIII, or 2006 UEFA Champions League Final.

Misplaced Pages's guideline on sports events make it clear that finals are permitted to be given their own entry, and that this applies across a range of sports such as American football, association football and Gaelic football. --86.40.97.73 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no point in assumed notability if nothing is stuck into the article showing anything notble. By the way I agree the 1983 one is very notable in itself even if for all the wrong reason but it looks to me like a copyright violation of the third citation 1983 All-Ireland final on Scannal. One should be writing things in ones own words rather than copying great big chunks. Dmcq (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I need to emphasise for people with a burning desire to immortalize things by sticking things into Misplaced Pages. That is just not how it works. Things need to be properly describe outside of Misplaced Pages in reliable sources first and then the stuff summarized in Misplaced Pages. There needs to be good citations in articles, if there isn't how is vandalism to be detected? So if anyone is thinking of immortalization they need to ensure the stuff is in a good stable place outside Misplaced Pages first and they need to make certain it gets recognised as a reliable source. It isn't easy. WP:SPORTSEVENT says about assumed notability but only actual sources confer actual notability - assumed notability can always be rejected at AfD. Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Amendment requested for 'The Troubles' Arbitration remedies; input welcome

Hi all,

Interested editors are invited to review and comment on a request for amendment to the discretionary sanctions remedy (R5) of the The Troubles Arbitration case.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)