This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 34 |
One thing that might be considered (if it hasn't already in the past) is a temporary move to "Ireland (xxx)" for say, X months. This would enable us to gauge whether it's any improvement over the current situation or not. It would need some sort of assessment process after the X months, which could be tricky to organize and agree on and involve a significant amount of work, but might be worth a spin.
(Another thought, but I hesitate to express this as it might seem facetious, is to have some sort of name-sharing agreement, where for instance the article is named "Republic of Ireland" for six months of the year and "Ireland (xxx)" for the other. Or maybe alternate the months, hmmm...)
Dickdock ( talk) 16:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. The verdict is clear, people do not support a page move.. why are people continuing to push for such a change. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has wandered all over the place. There is no longer any discussion of a temporary move, so it's inappropriate to this section anyway. I think we should draw a line under this now. See my proposal at #Closing the whole discussion. -- Scolaire ( talk) 08:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Bastun seems to enjoy publishing his preferred stats, even though I know he has a copy of the complete stats, and he's commented previously when I've posted the results of the updated stats in the past. So why use old and incomplete stats I wonder? For those suspicious of revisionist memory and selective recall, here's the complete stats using the entire polled population (posted at least 3 times in the past)
If we run STV on the votes, using combinations of "British" or "Irish" votes:
So bearing in mind that 35% of all the voters were British as compared to 17% Irish, British majority numbers certainly skewed the result when you look at the voting patterns, especially when you compare how 60% of the "British" vote went with Option F, significantly more that "Irish" at 35%, and "All Others" at 40%. Looking at these updated stats, now is a good time to reread the case being made by Bastun above and the subsequent comments. -- HighKing ( talk) 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, please stop using this section to get up on your soapbox and re-hash old arguments. If you must do that, at least be honest and open a new section at the bottom of the page. And I'm talking to all of you here, not any one person. Scolaire ( talk) 08:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a relevant topic, see
WP:TALK
|
---|
There is no problem. 124.169.204.158 ( talk) 13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The statement "Ireland is, Ireland was." is correct. Is it accepted by all? 124.169.204.158 ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree that Ireland is and Ireland was. But what follows if we agree? Scolaire ( talk) 14:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
One can move forward if one has an initial basis for agreement. If there is disagreement at the level of "Ireland is, Ireland was" further discussion is difficult. (Does GoodDay agree or not with the statement "Ireland is, Ireland was."?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.204.158 ( talk) 14:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you Mr GoodDay agree with the statement "Ireland is, Ireland was"? If so we have three people in agreement. May we move forward and see if we have others in agreement with this potential start point? 124.169.204.158 ( talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. "Ireland was, Irelands are". Please clarify the statement? 124.169.209.148 ( talk) 10:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Please indicate where the "Irelands" exist? 58.7.154.150 ( talk) 23:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC) This is relevant, as the discussion encompasses whether or not there are multiple Irelands. 58.7.154.150 ( talk) 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
The minimal changes to make are:
C.1 Delete redirect page "Ireland (xxx)" if it exists.
C.2 Move page "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (xxx)"
C.3 Create "Republic of Ireland" redirect page -> "Ireland (xxx)"
C.4 Edit the 35 redirect pages that point to "Republic of Ireland" to point to "Ireland (xxx)". ( WhatLinksHere/Republic_of_Ireland&hidelinks=1)
D.1 The "Ireland (disambiguation)" page remains the same.
D.2 There is an embargo on changing existing "Republic of Ireland" links to "Ireland (xxx)".
D.3 There is an embargo on using "Ireland (xxx)" in new contexts.
D.4 The changes will be reviewed in X months.
D.5 The review will be limited to Y weeks.
D.6 The default action after the review if no consensus arises is to undo the changes.
So there you go. Nothing else changes. People go about their biz as normal, using and linking to "Republic of Ireland" or whatever else is appropriate as if nothing has happened. And we all come back for a bun fight in X months time. Thank you (Madame?) Chairman. Over to the floor. Dickdock ( talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Edited to incorporate Dmcq's point below. Dickdock ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the perceived problem? 203.206.0.59 ( talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. One notes that there are two articles with substantially the same content and name, when one article would suffice. The reader of the encyclopaedia may be confused by such a choice. Is this the problem? 124.169.35.204 ( talk) 02:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I cannot believe the bad-faith bitterness this whole project engenders. Over and over again we have to explain that at least some people find Republic of Ireland to be problematic. Over and over again we make a tiny bit of progress, getting some agreement from some people that even if they don"t understand the problem some people have with the status quo, they recognize that some change might make this a better environment to work in. Consensus of people of good faith seems to be that Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland being a disambiguation page would be a way of of this endless strife.
And then what do we get? We get thrown "majority rules" even though Wikipedia is not a democracy and are thrown dismissive numbers. "You lose, 25 to 10, status quo wins."
No wonder editors like me have steered clear of editing articles within WikiProject Ireland entirely for the past two years. Even keeping a page on one's watchlist invites updates where someone or other is changing an "Ireland" to a "Republic of Ireland", or changing it back. It is ceaselessly outrageous.
Any rational person can see that the problem we have is emotive and social. The problem is not the name of the article. The problem is the fact that we have a totally adversarial working environment. Only one thing will fix it: change of article names to something that doesn't kick anybody in the groin over and over again.
If the article on the state were at Ireland (state) would anyone be wasting his breath agitating to have it changed to Republic of Ireland? Hardly. Would a significant minority of people go on agitating for years to make that change?
The Ireland articles on the Wikipedia have been bedevilled by this argument since at least 2002. We're going on a decade of this crap.
Instead of all this, we could have a working environment where people could just get on with improving the articles. That would be collaboration. We've got no collaboration now. Just brinksmanship. I can hardly believe I'm even back here trying to make sense here again, because it's just all the same arguments over and over again.
And those arguments are all about the wrong thing.
The problem is not the truth-value of the article names. The problem is that the status quo of the article names causes bad feelings and ill-will among many, even if not most or all, editors—and this keeps talented editors from even bothering with articles on Irish topics.
And makes every one of us look like an idiot in the wider community of Wikipedians. And yet, there is a solution easy and within our grasp. I am tempted to invest some time in it. But it is going to take some bravery on the part of the fence-sitters. -- Evertype· ✆ 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I am in Minneapolis working today, and it is just morning; I will return to this discussion when I can. -- Evertype· ✆ 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no good reason to go around making a mess of Wikipedia for silly experiments. There is a perfectly straightforward way of deciding disputes and it doesn't involve power-sharing over articles or anything like that. If somebody wants to set up an encyclopaedia where the articles change name in proportion to votes or whatever at 2 o'clock or whatever time or some random time round the world and change all the links to the page every second Saturday then they are fully entitled to set up their own project. However this is Wikipedia and consensus is the way decisions are made. Going on and on with unconstructive ideas is disruptive. There is no way this is going to happen and therefore talk about it is not reasonable content for this talk page as per WP:TALK. As its nutshell says 'Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. They are also most certainly not just a random discussion forum, for discussing the subject in question.' Will discussion about swapping names around when it isn't going to happen help improve the articles in the encyclopaedia? I don't see that it would. Does going on about the decisions help or is it liable to sway minds at this point? I feel this whole business should just be wrapped up like the silly "Ireland is, Ireland was." stuff before it. It can be revisited again later but the longer this discussion is then the longer in proportion should be the time before the whole business is brought up again. All this waste of time = does is harden attitudes. Dmcq ( talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a question for Evertype. You say, "Consensus of people of good faith seems to be that Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland being a disambiguation page would be a way of of this endless strife." Can you show me diffs to that consensus? In all the hundreds of kilobytes of discussion since 18 September I haven't seen that particular proposal even mentioned, never mind getting a consensus. In fact the last time I saw any reference to it was in September 2009 when you yourself were pushing it as the only allowable solution. There may have been one or two proposals this time around that people might have budged on - Ireland (state) on its own, for instance, or merging the two Ireland articles - but you don't seem to have noticed those. A further question while I'm at it: how do you determine who "people of good faith" are? I presume I'm not one since I don't agree with you and I never have. Scolaire ( talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTCa)
So what state does "Ireland (state)" refer to... The Irish Free State? the Irish Republic?, the Republic of Ireland, or the pre-Act of Union 1801 Ireland, or maybe even the Lordship of Ireland? All can be classified as states so its far too vague a title. Republic of Ireland works well enough and is the official state description for the state. Mabuska (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Have to say, I've been steering well clear of these topics recently for pretty much exactly the reasons you've outlined above. Well said. That posting should be preserved. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ireland (Republic of Ireland)?
I'm not actually advocating this, but it caught by eye as an undiscussed approach. -- RA ( talk) 13:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice to be yelled at for having said "bad faith" even after I changed it to "bitterness". Nice too to be called dishonest. What I notice, though, is that the people who talked about those things didn't address the point. The point is not the truth-value of the article titles. The truth is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state interferes with WikiProject Ireland from successfully growing and expanding and improving articles because energy is perpetually attracted to the problem of a number of editors being deeply dissatisfied with the article titles as they are.
I put it to you, that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is simply unable to come to consensus, and that we need, again, to poll the wider community of the English Wikipedia, as this is a matter which affects everyone, not just people in Britain and Ireland who wish to be involved with articles about Ireland. -- Evertype· ✆ 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Evertype, there have been several polls recently, and - not that you'll like hearing me say it - the consensus is to retain the status quo. "The truth is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state interferes with WikiProject Ireland from successfully growing and expanding and improving articles because energy is perpetually attracted to the problem of a number of editors being deeply dissatisfied with the article titles as they are." Yes, agreed. I hope you would also concede that the vocal opposition to the RoI title comes from a relatively small minority of editors (not all of whom contribute to Irish articles in any case), and that they may just have to accept (based on the 2009 vote and the polls above) that "Republic of Ireland" is by far the preferred title among the vast majority, and put up with it.
I will therefore propose the following:
Thoughts? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and #8 - GoodDay may not particpate on any poll discussions with any contribution shorter than five lines on a monitor using a resolution of 1920x1080... ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a better idea. Is Evertype willing to concede that a simple move of ROI to Ireland (state) is more likely to get agreement over time than any other move proposal to date, new or old? If so (and assuming nobody else in the move lobby disagrees), we can avoid another divisive and bitter multi-option poll, move on to a discussion of what he correctly identifies as the key problem - the dissatisfaction of some editors with the article title - and develop a collaborative approach which takes all the stats, ghits, statutes etc. as read and avoids drama, snide comments and accusations of any sort. Scolaire ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I am glad that the topic is being taken more seriously. I am dismayed a bit by the use of the word "concede" by Scoláire, but perhaps he didn't mean it to chafe. I am still travelling and will not be home till 15 November. I agree to beginning a new poll in January. I would not like to see an endless weeks-long hand-wringing about the options and about wordsmithing the options on a new Wiki-wide poll. I agree there ought to be fewer options in the poll. I think that the island and the state and the disambiguation titles (all three) should be listed even if in some options all three are changed from status quo the present configuration and in others only one or two are. I'd like to suggest that we all think privately about the options we consider sensible for for a time rather than laying them out here (if for no reason but that I would like to work constructively and won't be able to follow the topic very effectively till 15 November). I volunteer to work with RA as editor of the poll document, which work he and I did effectively previously. Is this acceptable? --
Evertype·
✆ 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose any new poll, we have just had one, it was clear 2.4:1 for keeping the status quo, this new poll is a waste of time, lets leave it for six months and review it then. Mt king (edits) 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This is my final statement. After having spent several weeks stating a good case for continued discussion and final movement of the title "Republic of Ireland", I have no recourse but to respond to this diff, a table pounding lies-and-misrepresentations-filled rant that typifies the current membership here. "By far the preferred title among the vast majority"? Bastun, are you hiring BritishWatcher as a ghost writer? Thirty-four total voters in a semi-obscure follow-on poll, with practically no participation from many who actually oppose your stance but don't want to take your abuse? People who like me have no reason to want to continue to have good work and rational discussion met with vitriol and dismissal? What an utter joke.
My recommendation is that this project be abolished. It is a safe haven of "status quo" opinion inhabited by the "victors" of the 2009 poll and its continued presence has absolutely destroyed the reputation of fairness that I once assumed Wikipedia deserved. That is not because Bastun, RA, Scolaire and newer "participants" continue to hang out here and hold court here; it's how they got to this point and the "power" they claim. The problem is, Wikipedia in its official capacity, exemplified by policy makers and the arbitration committee, have sanctioned this idiocy as the only place to discuss the unsound, myopic and biased article structure and titling that was adopted in 2002. As of this writing they, and by extension en.wikipedia.org's oligarchical management, continue to funnel all reasonable objections into this forum, in essence sending differing opinions straight off to slaughter. This forum is not neutral. The only way for fairness to prevail at this point would be to abolish this "WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" (actual title) project and seek an impartial panel of a few highly respected editors to set up a mechanism that fairly reviews and rates previous discussions and works toward final restructuring of the Ireland articles. Any continued discussion at this forum, peopled with the current biased and intransigent membership, is nothing short of mental masturbation. Sswonk ( talk) 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose a new full poll. We got a very clear result two years ago from a community wide poll, it has been stable during the two year period of the page move ban. That ban came to an end, people were asked if they wanted to go to arbcom for an extension, that vote failed with many saying it needs to be discussed again. There was then a second poll, which showed very clear support for the status quo along with massive debate below regarding these matters. There is no justification for another "wikipedia wide" poll, just because a minority oppose something still. BritishWatcher ( talk) 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Sswonk, in composing your "final statement" rant above (which proved, unsurprisingly, not be all that final) in which you accuse me of ranting, you seem to have (deliberately?) misread what I actually wrote. '"By far the preferred title among the vast majority"?...Thirty-four total voters in a semi-obscure follow-on poll' This was a 2.4-1 "semi-obscure follow-on poll" which was advertised widely and took place in the only venue such discussions can take place, which will presumably be on the watchlist of the huge numbers you obviously feel are opposed to the current titles, whether that be nationalistic reasons or reasons of "incorrectness". But you seem to have missed "based on the 2009 vote". Using HighKing's tally:
You know I support it. I have done since joining WP. But my proposal to Evertype above, which you object so strongly to, is absolutely genuine. I've proposed a poll advertised as widely as possible. I've proposed that it take place after a "time out", following the three recent polls here. I've proposed that it be limited to options that actually stand a chance, rather than include the likes of Option A from 2009, which attracted a miserable 3.4% of first preferences. Taken together, I think most people would accept that as being a reasonable compromise or concession from someone whose "side" has the status quo in place. All I'm really asking in return is that the other "side" concede that the status quo is a valid position that may well remain in place. There is no bad faith there. Please, therefore, stop with the personal attacks. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The status quo does nothing but perpetuate the problem, no matter how much some of you like it. We had a vote two years ago. The status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state won. We had a two-year moritorium on discussion. That should have been enough to see whether that status quo useage was stable, should it not? Well, now the moritorium is over. The problem has not gone away. It is not difficult to recognize that if, even after two years of stability based on that poll, the problem has not gone away, then it is probable that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state is and will remain problematic for some people, whether in the minority or in the majority. To address the problem (and the problem is an unstable project beset with adversarial argument and brinksmanship and abuse and bad feelings and passive-aggressiveness and on and on and on), it seems sensible to do something else than fight to perpetuate the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state. Bastun may have a preference, but has not responded to my thesis, that if the articles were named other than the status quo Republic of Ireland, we might get out of the hole we are all in. And we are all in it together. Accordingly, I propose that the next poll does not contain the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state as an option, but instead explore the optimal use of other options. Because we know that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland is nothing but a source of bad-feelings and discord. We're all grown-ups. We can settle on another name-configuration that doesn't undermine Irish articles on the Wikipedia, can we not? --
Evertype·
✆ 13:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
May others join in the discussion regarding Ireland or is the discussion restricted to registered users with similar views? 58.7.244.17 ( talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I asked before if anyone would identify themselves as being personally annoyed by the title 'Republic of Ireland' and Sswonk said no and now we have Evertype saying they are just arguing about it because of it causing problems to other people. Could I please ask again - does anyone here actually feel personally offended or distrustful or aggravated or whatever by the title 'Republic of Ireland'? Or is everyone going to say oh no I'm only concerned about getting the trouble solved for everyone else? Dmcq ( talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
And p.s. here Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive is a really bloody conflict over the name of an article. Do you feel as strong as these people that your preferred title should be the one used? Dmcq ( talk) 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
And I'm asking because I haven't seen any problems elsewhere caused by this disagreement whereas there's another matter which every so often does cause actual trouble and resentment and I'd prefer it be dealt with instead. Dmcq ( talk) 13:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 34 |
One thing that might be considered (if it hasn't already in the past) is a temporary move to "Ireland (xxx)" for say, X months. This would enable us to gauge whether it's any improvement over the current situation or not. It would need some sort of assessment process after the X months, which could be tricky to organize and agree on and involve a significant amount of work, but might be worth a spin.
(Another thought, but I hesitate to express this as it might seem facetious, is to have some sort of name-sharing agreement, where for instance the article is named "Republic of Ireland" for six months of the year and "Ireland (xxx)" for the other. Or maybe alternate the months, hmmm...)
Dickdock ( talk) 16:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. The verdict is clear, people do not support a page move.. why are people continuing to push for such a change. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has wandered all over the place. There is no longer any discussion of a temporary move, so it's inappropriate to this section anyway. I think we should draw a line under this now. See my proposal at #Closing the whole discussion. -- Scolaire ( talk) 08:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Bastun seems to enjoy publishing his preferred stats, even though I know he has a copy of the complete stats, and he's commented previously when I've posted the results of the updated stats in the past. So why use old and incomplete stats I wonder? For those suspicious of revisionist memory and selective recall, here's the complete stats using the entire polled population (posted at least 3 times in the past)
If we run STV on the votes, using combinations of "British" or "Irish" votes:
So bearing in mind that 35% of all the voters were British as compared to 17% Irish, British majority numbers certainly skewed the result when you look at the voting patterns, especially when you compare how 60% of the "British" vote went with Option F, significantly more that "Irish" at 35%, and "All Others" at 40%. Looking at these updated stats, now is a good time to reread the case being made by Bastun above and the subsequent comments. -- HighKing ( talk) 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, please stop using this section to get up on your soapbox and re-hash old arguments. If you must do that, at least be honest and open a new section at the bottom of the page. And I'm talking to all of you here, not any one person. Scolaire ( talk) 08:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a relevant topic, see
WP:TALK
|
---|
There is no problem. 124.169.204.158 ( talk) 13:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The statement "Ireland is, Ireland was." is correct. Is it accepted by all? 124.169.204.158 ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree that Ireland is and Ireland was. But what follows if we agree? Scolaire ( talk) 14:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
One can move forward if one has an initial basis for agreement. If there is disagreement at the level of "Ireland is, Ireland was" further discussion is difficult. (Does GoodDay agree or not with the statement "Ireland is, Ireland was."?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.204.158 ( talk) 14:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you Mr GoodDay agree with the statement "Ireland is, Ireland was"? If so we have three people in agreement. May we move forward and see if we have others in agreement with this potential start point? 124.169.204.158 ( talk) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution. "Ireland was, Irelands are". Please clarify the statement? 124.169.209.148 ( talk) 10:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Please indicate where the "Irelands" exist? 58.7.154.150 ( talk) 23:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC) This is relevant, as the discussion encompasses whether or not there are multiple Irelands. 58.7.154.150 ( talk) 03:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
The minimal changes to make are:
C.1 Delete redirect page "Ireland (xxx)" if it exists.
C.2 Move page "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (xxx)"
C.3 Create "Republic of Ireland" redirect page -> "Ireland (xxx)"
C.4 Edit the 35 redirect pages that point to "Republic of Ireland" to point to "Ireland (xxx)". ( WhatLinksHere/Republic_of_Ireland&hidelinks=1)
D.1 The "Ireland (disambiguation)" page remains the same.
D.2 There is an embargo on changing existing "Republic of Ireland" links to "Ireland (xxx)".
D.3 There is an embargo on using "Ireland (xxx)" in new contexts.
D.4 The changes will be reviewed in X months.
D.5 The review will be limited to Y weeks.
D.6 The default action after the review if no consensus arises is to undo the changes.
So there you go. Nothing else changes. People go about their biz as normal, using and linking to "Republic of Ireland" or whatever else is appropriate as if nothing has happened. And we all come back for a bun fight in X months time. Thank you (Madame?) Chairman. Over to the floor. Dickdock ( talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Edited to incorporate Dmcq's point below. Dickdock ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What is the perceived problem? 203.206.0.59 ( talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. One notes that there are two articles with substantially the same content and name, when one article would suffice. The reader of the encyclopaedia may be confused by such a choice. Is this the problem? 124.169.35.204 ( talk) 02:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I cannot believe the bad-faith bitterness this whole project engenders. Over and over again we have to explain that at least some people find Republic of Ireland to be problematic. Over and over again we make a tiny bit of progress, getting some agreement from some people that even if they don"t understand the problem some people have with the status quo, they recognize that some change might make this a better environment to work in. Consensus of people of good faith seems to be that Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland being a disambiguation page would be a way of of this endless strife.
And then what do we get? We get thrown "majority rules" even though Wikipedia is not a democracy and are thrown dismissive numbers. "You lose, 25 to 10, status quo wins."
No wonder editors like me have steered clear of editing articles within WikiProject Ireland entirely for the past two years. Even keeping a page on one's watchlist invites updates where someone or other is changing an "Ireland" to a "Republic of Ireland", or changing it back. It is ceaselessly outrageous.
Any rational person can see that the problem we have is emotive and social. The problem is not the name of the article. The problem is the fact that we have a totally adversarial working environment. Only one thing will fix it: change of article names to something that doesn't kick anybody in the groin over and over again.
If the article on the state were at Ireland (state) would anyone be wasting his breath agitating to have it changed to Republic of Ireland? Hardly. Would a significant minority of people go on agitating for years to make that change?
The Ireland articles on the Wikipedia have been bedevilled by this argument since at least 2002. We're going on a decade of this crap.
Instead of all this, we could have a working environment where people could just get on with improving the articles. That would be collaboration. We've got no collaboration now. Just brinksmanship. I can hardly believe I'm even back here trying to make sense here again, because it's just all the same arguments over and over again.
And those arguments are all about the wrong thing.
The problem is not the truth-value of the article names. The problem is that the status quo of the article names causes bad feelings and ill-will among many, even if not most or all, editors—and this keeps talented editors from even bothering with articles on Irish topics.
And makes every one of us look like an idiot in the wider community of Wikipedians. And yet, there is a solution easy and within our grasp. I am tempted to invest some time in it. But it is going to take some bravery on the part of the fence-sitters. -- Evertype· ✆ 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I am in Minneapolis working today, and it is just morning; I will return to this discussion when I can. -- Evertype· ✆ 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no good reason to go around making a mess of Wikipedia for silly experiments. There is a perfectly straightforward way of deciding disputes and it doesn't involve power-sharing over articles or anything like that. If somebody wants to set up an encyclopaedia where the articles change name in proportion to votes or whatever at 2 o'clock or whatever time or some random time round the world and change all the links to the page every second Saturday then they are fully entitled to set up their own project. However this is Wikipedia and consensus is the way decisions are made. Going on and on with unconstructive ideas is disruptive. There is no way this is going to happen and therefore talk about it is not reasonable content for this talk page as per WP:TALK. As its nutshell says 'Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. They are also most certainly not just a random discussion forum, for discussing the subject in question.' Will discussion about swapping names around when it isn't going to happen help improve the articles in the encyclopaedia? I don't see that it would. Does going on about the decisions help or is it liable to sway minds at this point? I feel this whole business should just be wrapped up like the silly "Ireland is, Ireland was." stuff before it. It can be revisited again later but the longer this discussion is then the longer in proportion should be the time before the whole business is brought up again. All this waste of time = does is harden attitudes. Dmcq ( talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a question for Evertype. You say, "Consensus of people of good faith seems to be that Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland being a disambiguation page would be a way of of this endless strife." Can you show me diffs to that consensus? In all the hundreds of kilobytes of discussion since 18 September I haven't seen that particular proposal even mentioned, never mind getting a consensus. In fact the last time I saw any reference to it was in September 2009 when you yourself were pushing it as the only allowable solution. There may have been one or two proposals this time around that people might have budged on - Ireland (state) on its own, for instance, or merging the two Ireland articles - but you don't seem to have noticed those. A further question while I'm at it: how do you determine who "people of good faith" are? I presume I'm not one since I don't agree with you and I never have. Scolaire ( talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTCa)
So what state does "Ireland (state)" refer to... The Irish Free State? the Irish Republic?, the Republic of Ireland, or the pre-Act of Union 1801 Ireland, or maybe even the Lordship of Ireland? All can be classified as states so its far too vague a title. Republic of Ireland works well enough and is the official state description for the state. Mabuska (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Have to say, I've been steering well clear of these topics recently for pretty much exactly the reasons you've outlined above. Well said. That posting should be preserved. -- HighKing ( talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ireland (Republic of Ireland)?
I'm not actually advocating this, but it caught by eye as an undiscussed approach. -- RA ( talk) 13:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice to be yelled at for having said "bad faith" even after I changed it to "bitterness". Nice too to be called dishonest. What I notice, though, is that the people who talked about those things didn't address the point. The point is not the truth-value of the article titles. The truth is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state interferes with WikiProject Ireland from successfully growing and expanding and improving articles because energy is perpetually attracted to the problem of a number of editors being deeply dissatisfied with the article titles as they are.
I put it to you, that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is simply unable to come to consensus, and that we need, again, to poll the wider community of the English Wikipedia, as this is a matter which affects everyone, not just people in Britain and Ireland who wish to be involved with articles about Ireland. -- Evertype· ✆ 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Evertype, there have been several polls recently, and - not that you'll like hearing me say it - the consensus is to retain the status quo. "The truth is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state interferes with WikiProject Ireland from successfully growing and expanding and improving articles because energy is perpetually attracted to the problem of a number of editors being deeply dissatisfied with the article titles as they are." Yes, agreed. I hope you would also concede that the vocal opposition to the RoI title comes from a relatively small minority of editors (not all of whom contribute to Irish articles in any case), and that they may just have to accept (based on the 2009 vote and the polls above) that "Republic of Ireland" is by far the preferred title among the vast majority, and put up with it.
I will therefore propose the following:
Thoughts? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and #8 - GoodDay may not particpate on any poll discussions with any contribution shorter than five lines on a monitor using a resolution of 1920x1080... ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I have a better idea. Is Evertype willing to concede that a simple move of ROI to Ireland (state) is more likely to get agreement over time than any other move proposal to date, new or old? If so (and assuming nobody else in the move lobby disagrees), we can avoid another divisive and bitter multi-option poll, move on to a discussion of what he correctly identifies as the key problem - the dissatisfaction of some editors with the article title - and develop a collaborative approach which takes all the stats, ghits, statutes etc. as read and avoids drama, snide comments and accusations of any sort. Scolaire ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I am glad that the topic is being taken more seriously. I am dismayed a bit by the use of the word "concede" by Scoláire, but perhaps he didn't mean it to chafe. I am still travelling and will not be home till 15 November. I agree to beginning a new poll in January. I would not like to see an endless weeks-long hand-wringing about the options and about wordsmithing the options on a new Wiki-wide poll. I agree there ought to be fewer options in the poll. I think that the island and the state and the disambiguation titles (all three) should be listed even if in some options all three are changed from status quo the present configuration and in others only one or two are. I'd like to suggest that we all think privately about the options we consider sensible for for a time rather than laying them out here (if for no reason but that I would like to work constructively and won't be able to follow the topic very effectively till 15 November). I volunteer to work with RA as editor of the poll document, which work he and I did effectively previously. Is this acceptable? --
Evertype·
✆ 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose any new poll, we have just had one, it was clear 2.4:1 for keeping the status quo, this new poll is a waste of time, lets leave it for six months and review it then. Mt king (edits) 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This is my final statement. After having spent several weeks stating a good case for continued discussion and final movement of the title "Republic of Ireland", I have no recourse but to respond to this diff, a table pounding lies-and-misrepresentations-filled rant that typifies the current membership here. "By far the preferred title among the vast majority"? Bastun, are you hiring BritishWatcher as a ghost writer? Thirty-four total voters in a semi-obscure follow-on poll, with practically no participation from many who actually oppose your stance but don't want to take your abuse? People who like me have no reason to want to continue to have good work and rational discussion met with vitriol and dismissal? What an utter joke.
My recommendation is that this project be abolished. It is a safe haven of "status quo" opinion inhabited by the "victors" of the 2009 poll and its continued presence has absolutely destroyed the reputation of fairness that I once assumed Wikipedia deserved. That is not because Bastun, RA, Scolaire and newer "participants" continue to hang out here and hold court here; it's how they got to this point and the "power" they claim. The problem is, Wikipedia in its official capacity, exemplified by policy makers and the arbitration committee, have sanctioned this idiocy as the only place to discuss the unsound, myopic and biased article structure and titling that was adopted in 2002. As of this writing they, and by extension en.wikipedia.org's oligarchical management, continue to funnel all reasonable objections into this forum, in essence sending differing opinions straight off to slaughter. This forum is not neutral. The only way for fairness to prevail at this point would be to abolish this "WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" (actual title) project and seek an impartial panel of a few highly respected editors to set up a mechanism that fairly reviews and rates previous discussions and works toward final restructuring of the Ireland articles. Any continued discussion at this forum, peopled with the current biased and intransigent membership, is nothing short of mental masturbation. Sswonk ( talk) 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose a new full poll. We got a very clear result two years ago from a community wide poll, it has been stable during the two year period of the page move ban. That ban came to an end, people were asked if they wanted to go to arbcom for an extension, that vote failed with many saying it needs to be discussed again. There was then a second poll, which showed very clear support for the status quo along with massive debate below regarding these matters. There is no justification for another "wikipedia wide" poll, just because a minority oppose something still. BritishWatcher ( talk) 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Sswonk, in composing your "final statement" rant above (which proved, unsurprisingly, not be all that final) in which you accuse me of ranting, you seem to have (deliberately?) misread what I actually wrote. '"By far the preferred title among the vast majority"?...Thirty-four total voters in a semi-obscure follow-on poll' This was a 2.4-1 "semi-obscure follow-on poll" which was advertised widely and took place in the only venue such discussions can take place, which will presumably be on the watchlist of the huge numbers you obviously feel are opposed to the current titles, whether that be nationalistic reasons or reasons of "incorrectness". But you seem to have missed "based on the 2009 vote". Using HighKing's tally:
You know I support it. I have done since joining WP. But my proposal to Evertype above, which you object so strongly to, is absolutely genuine. I've proposed a poll advertised as widely as possible. I've proposed that it take place after a "time out", following the three recent polls here. I've proposed that it be limited to options that actually stand a chance, rather than include the likes of Option A from 2009, which attracted a miserable 3.4% of first preferences. Taken together, I think most people would accept that as being a reasonable compromise or concession from someone whose "side" has the status quo in place. All I'm really asking in return is that the other "side" concede that the status quo is a valid position that may well remain in place. There is no bad faith there. Please, therefore, stop with the personal attacks. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
The status quo does nothing but perpetuate the problem, no matter how much some of you like it. We had a vote two years ago. The status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state won. We had a two-year moritorium on discussion. That should have been enough to see whether that status quo useage was stable, should it not? Well, now the moritorium is over. The problem has not gone away. It is not difficult to recognize that if, even after two years of stability based on that poll, the problem has not gone away, then it is probable that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state is and will remain problematic for some people, whether in the minority or in the majority. To address the problem (and the problem is an unstable project beset with adversarial argument and brinksmanship and abuse and bad feelings and passive-aggressiveness and on and on and on), it seems sensible to do something else than fight to perpetuate the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state. Bastun may have a preference, but has not responded to my thesis, that if the articles were named other than the status quo Republic of Ireland, we might get out of the hole we are all in. And we are all in it together. Accordingly, I propose that the next poll does not contain the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state as an option, but instead explore the optimal use of other options. Because we know that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland is nothing but a source of bad-feelings and discord. We're all grown-ups. We can settle on another name-configuration that doesn't undermine Irish articles on the Wikipedia, can we not? --
Evertype·
✆ 13:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
May others join in the discussion regarding Ireland or is the discussion restricted to registered users with similar views? 58.7.244.17 ( talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I asked before if anyone would identify themselves as being personally annoyed by the title 'Republic of Ireland' and Sswonk said no and now we have Evertype saying they are just arguing about it because of it causing problems to other people. Could I please ask again - does anyone here actually feel personally offended or distrustful or aggravated or whatever by the title 'Republic of Ireland'? Or is everyone going to say oh no I'm only concerned about getting the trouble solved for everyone else? Dmcq ( talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
And p.s. here Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive is a really bloody conflict over the name of an article. Do you feel as strong as these people that your preferred title should be the one used? Dmcq ( talk) 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
And I'm asking because I haven't seen any problems elsewhere caused by this disagreement whereas there's another matter which every so often does cause actual trouble and resentment and I'd prefer it be dealt with instead. Dmcq ( talk) 13:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)