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 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dublin Harbour (Dáil Éireann constituency). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Please note that this discussion could affect many other similar articles relating to the constituencies of the First Dáil. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Ireland/Archive 18 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, there is currently a discussion ongoing at Conor McGregor's talk page in regards to the inclusion of certain material. Given the article is relevant to this project, I thought I'd leave a notification here as more input is required. Thank you ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello - there's currently an RfC taking place Talk:Real Irish Republican Army about creating a new page for the so-called 'New IRA'. This may be of interest and I would encourage everyone to give their view to generate some consensus. st170e ^talk 23:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Years of the 20th century in the Republic of Ireland currently has no sub-cats between 1928 in the Irish Free State and 1949 in the Republic of Ireland. There is only the all-Ireland level, Category:Years of the 20th century in Ireland.

At this CFD, the name Category:Independent_Ireland_in_World_War_II was kept, for want of consensus to use either the preceding or subsequent names of the state.

Would it be acceptable and useful to create year categories for Independent Ireland? The contents of the annual Law and Politics categories all seem to be south of the border (10th, 11th & 12th Dáil‎, Irish general & presidential elections). – Fayenatic L ondon 16:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A CFD discussion is taking place here that may interest this project. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A CFD discussion is open here that may interest the project. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was adding a citation today when it occurred to me this might be worthwhile (consistent formatting, ease of adding citations). It turns out there was already a suggestion on the talk page from 8 years ago. I’ve created a template sandbox and a test page. The changes seem to work OK, but does anyone have an opinion about whether this is a good thing to do? A bit of testing from fresh eyes would be useful too.

The changes are two named parameters, placeid and accessdate, which can be added to existing unnamed parameters. E.g. {{Irish place name/sandbox|Cill na Mallach|church of the summits|placeid=1416562|accessdate=5 January 2017}}. —☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 07:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 15:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The day is a Sunday and apparently it's the WikiBirthday. I was wondering if anyone in the region of Cork - or willing to be in the region of Cork (city) - would like to get together for Wiki themed coffee (or tea/chocolate/hot drinks/cold drinks) and plotting?- ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 03:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A quick question, is an Independent Media Center article accepted as an NPOV source? PatrickGuinness ( talk) 16:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see section here on using Irish-language names in the lede for Unionist political parties. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Module:Country alias was recently modified ( diff) to change the Ireland flag (used at the British Empire Games in 1930) from the Flag of Leinster to The Royal Standard pre-1801. I believed this was wrong, and reverted, but since then a discussion ( permanent link) has taken place on my talk page.

Oddly enough both VEO15 and I are using the same reference ( [1]) to corroborate our side of the story: in the body of the text is "a golden harp on a blue (or possibly green) background", with the citation stating "A gold Irish harp on a blue field is also associated historically with the flag and coat of arms of Leinster." The former gives no information about which harp is displayed, but the latter seems to make it fairly clear that it's the blue variant of the Flag of Leinster. VEO15 argues that this image clearly shows the bust-ed harp, but personally I don't see enough evidence to overturn what's in the text. Additionally, of course, is the fact that the Royal Standard in question was last used in 1801...

So, I come here, asking for assistance/advice/thoughts/peanuts. Primefac ( talk) 21:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: The discussion seems to have stayed at my talk page, so I guess any further comments should go there. Thanks. Primefac ( talk) 12:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A category has been nominated for upmerging here that may interest the project. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

An editor is adding "United Ireland" to the ideology line of many Irish political party infoboxes. Is this appropriate? I would argue it isn't. Sure, Fianna Fáil, Labour, and the PBPA aspire to a united Ireland to some degree or other. Even Fine Gael do. But are they actually doing anything to advance it? All parties support the Good Friday Agreement. Adding this "ideology" above core policy platforms seems much more like an editor pushing their agenda rather than anything else. But I may well be wrong. Other viewpoints very welcome. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Apollo The Logician.

I agree, you were right in removing it from FF, FG and LP as it isn't really an important policy for them. I think the infoboxes of parties in the north or parties that see a united Ireland as an important policy should include united Ireland if they support it. I have no idea how those parties suporting the GFA is relevant or why you think I am POV pushing. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 20:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

At least it is a case of "undue weight". Most parties know that it is just a distant dream and they are not actively pursuing it. (Sinn Fein is the exception). Having the theme on your wish list does not make it an important theme. The Banner  talk 21:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect, in the aftermath of Brexit both Enda Kenny and Michael Martin acknowledged the possibility of it and said it should be considered in Brexit negotiations. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism and republicanism are ideologies. A united Ireland is a goal. Alfie Gandon ( talk) 21:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not really sure what your point is. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not, it's very clear. You're mixing up a goal ("United Ireland") with the ideology one needs to strive to achieve it ("nationalism/republicanism"). Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism/republicanism is the belief in a united Ireland. You are splitting hairs. Anyway why are bring this up? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 18:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify things, as you seemed unclear? In any case, Kenny and Martin (and May, and Foster, and various others) all seem to be saying the first thing that comes into their heads when it comes to Brexit. I don't see how the two of them saying a United Ireland should be considered in Brexit negotiations (it will be, where it'll be summarily dismissed by the British) justifies inclusion in their respective parties' infoboxes. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you think it needed clarification? Why do you think I am mixing anything up? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 20:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Because you said "I am not really sure what your point is." Alfie Gandon ( talk) 21:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I know because I showed no sign of mixing them up. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a new stub article about a sculptor, a brief look through various sources indicates that he was quite a "big deal" in the Irish art scene of his time, so I believe the article needs to be expanded significantly. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place at WP:CFD here that may interest the project. Despite repeated requests to the nominator, she has failed to notify this project. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject notifications are supposed to be neutral, rather than an opportunity to kvetch.

I rarely bother any more with WikiProject notifications any more, because 19 times out of 20 they generate no response. If LL wants to make such a notification, they are of course free to do so, but should refrain from using them for attempts at point-scoring. - BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

While BHG may consider the project to be a backwater unworthy of her attentions, nevertheless, it is instructive to note that 2 invitations to notify were brought to her attention, which she declined, and also it is still best practice to notify the project, backwater or not: "If discussion at a quiet talk page has just attracted no or very little input, then leaving a neutral note on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject or inviting users who commented in previous discussions on the page (but see WP:CANVASS) is normally the best first step." Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As the latter date should make clear, the list of battles cited here takes place long after the invasion ended (see Norman invasion of Ireland for full list). The 1261 Battle of Callann is among the last that could plausibly be included in this list as the next hundred years saw the conquest rolled back. Therefore I submit that the following be removed from the above list - Moiry Pass (1315) Connor (1315) Kells (1315) Skerries (1316) 2nd Áth na Ríogh (1316) Loch Rasca (1317) Dysert O'Dea (1318) Faughart (1318) Áth an Urchair (1329) Fiodh an Átha (1330) Cruachán Brí Eile (1385) Ros Mhic Thriúin (1394) Tragh-Bhaile (1399) Cluain Immorrais (1406) Knockdoe (1504) Silken Thomas's Rebellion (1534–35) Belahoe. I have rendered it thus /info/en/?search=Template:Campaignbox_Irish-Norman_wars; let me know if opinions differ. Fergananim ( talk) 12:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

To avoid accusations of WP:OR, I'd like to see some citations to the effect that Norman wars ceased at the Battle of Callan. What were the later wars then - Old English? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Well its a question over invasion rather than the ethnic term used - it implies the invasion kept going from 1169 all the way to 1541; in fact the 1260s were the point when the invasion began to be rolled-back by various Gaelic dynasties. That's partly why I chose Callan as it was the first of a number of Gaelic-Irish victories over the Anglo-Irish, which were distinct from the invasion and overlapped with the Irish Bruce wars. They need to be treated on their own terms, not as part of an unhistoric centuries long 'invasion'. By the way, the term 'Old English' only came into use from after c. 1598, and the invaders never termed themselves 'Normans'. They called themselves English. By the 1200s their descendants in turn termed themselves Anglo-Hiberni, 'the English of Ireland', hence Anglo-Irish. To the Gaelic-Irish they were the Gall, distinct from the Saxain (English of England). Fergananim ( talk) 21:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The campaignbox lists the series of conflicts involving the Normans in Ireland. They may not have called themselves 'Normans', but that (along with 'Anglo-Normans' and 'Hiberno-Normans') is what they're called by historians, as it's the most accurate name for them. The campaignbox doesn't imply that the invasion kept going for centuries, because all battles after 1171 are listed under the heading "Post-invasion". Also, it's named "Norman wars in Ireland", not "Norman invasion of Ireland". ~ Asarlaí 22:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Conclusions? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not Wars in the Lordship of Ireland or Wars in Norman Ireland? All but two kings (of Cenel Eoghain and Cenel Conaill from the province of Ailech) swore alligence to the king of England and over the following century the Norman Earldom of Ulster had made headways into Ailechs powerbase in Inishowen. So it can be argued that nearly the whole if not all the island was under their influence. Also at what point do Irish born Normans no longer be classified as invaders? Mabuska ^(talk) 16:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I could happily support "Wars in the Lordship of Ireland". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, take a look in commons:Commons:Photo challenge/2017 - February - Multilingualism if you have any file you'd like to upload, maybe in some of your archive at home. So far nothing from Ireland.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 13:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just one for now. ww2censor ( talk) 11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

A very interesting one indeed. thank you.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 15:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about the RUC, discrimination and brutality in 1968 at Talk:The Troubles#Edits by Alfie Gandon and Talk:The Troubles/Archive 2#RUC and "police brutality". Any contribution welcomed. Scolaire ( talk) 18:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Irish language organizations has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder ( talk) 21:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Could use more eyes. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! In what way and why exactly? It doesn't seem to be subject to any frequent notable vandalism or edit-warring and if it is simply because the article may be lacking in ways then its one of many in this project :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 00:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised it doesn't. It's a big city with a million residents, spawned many famous people and if Belfast has its own one then why not the biggest city on the Island? 83.136.45.194 ( talk) 15:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite simply? No. Yes Belfast has it's own but is it active? No. It's for all intents and purposes defunct and continues to exist as a vestigial. I'm surprised that the Republic of Ireland doesn't have its own WikiProject never mind its capital city. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Mabuska. There's little enough activity here as it is. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In conversation at User talk:Bastun#Language tagging, we were discussing the language tagging of Gaeilge terms used in Irish English. Language tagging has many benefits; MOS:ACCESS (specifically WP:ATLANG) recommends the use of language tags across Wikipedia, as does the Irish Manual of Style.

Clearly there are lots of terms from Gaeilge that are used as a normal part of Irish English — such as An Post, Dáil, Taoiseach, Seanad Éireann, An Garda Síochána, gardaí and so on — one of the purposes of language tagging is to provide help to speech synthesisers, for example. Applying language tags telling software "this word is (or was originally) Gaeilge" makes no difference to most users — there's no visible difference in the rendered page — but means that assistive technologies are less likely to screw things up.

It would be useful if editors could consider adding language tags around such terms if they're editing pages about Ireland — it's just a case of using {{ lang|ga|...}} around the words in question.

Thanks! — OwenBlacker ( talk) 22:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017.

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject Ireland participants may be particularly interested in the following: Cannabis in Ireland.

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 21:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a need for an article on education through the medium of Irish, corresponding to Welsh medium education and Gaelic medium education in Scotland. In my view this should include education in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland, and within and outside the Gaeltacht areas. I do not have the background to write this, a knowledge of Irish would probably be useful for examining sources.

I have found relevant coverage in Gaelscoil (where Irish-medium education redirects to), in Gaelcholáiste and in Education in Northern Ireland#Irish language medium education. There are brief mentions in Education in the Republic of Ireland.

What is the difference between Gaelscoil and Gaelcholáiste? Should these articles be merged, possibly into my requested new article? Otherwise please update them to clarify the distinction. I came here from County Donegal, which says "There are 1005 students attending the five Gaelscoileanna and two Gaelcholáistí in the rest of the county." – this needs clarification.

Thanks, Verbcatcher ( talk) 19:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, gaelscoil refers to a primary- or secondary-level Irish-medium school, while gaelcholáiste refers only to a secondary-level Irish-medium school. Hence the sentence, "there are 171 gaelscoileanna...at primary level...and 31 gaelcholáistí...at secondary level". There is also apparently also something called an "aonad Gaeilge" which is defined as an "Irish language unit or stream" but is not explained any further. The two articles do need to be merged, and edited to make sense to anybody who is not directly involved in the system. I do understand Irish, but I wouldn't be able to write knowledgeably about gaelscoileanna. Whether the merged article should be moved to an English title consistent with the Scottish and Welsh articles could be the subject of a move request. Scolaire ( talk) 08:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of the sentence I quoted from County Donegal is that the editor used Gaelscoileanna for Irish-medium schools in the Gaeltacht areas and Gaelcholáistí for Irish-medium schools in the rest of the county. This conflicts with these articles which both say that they apply to schools outside the Gaeltacht areas. Verbcatcher ( talk) 18:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the previous paragraph says that "all schools in the region [the Gaeltacht] use Irish as the language of instruction." Then the sentence you quoted says, "There are 1005 students attending the five Gaelscoileanna and two Gaelcholáistí in the rest of the county." Gaelscoileanna is here being used in its restricted meaning of primary-level, extra-Gaeltacht, Irish language schools. Scolaire ( talk) 12:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have edited County Donegal accordingly. I have not attempted to edit Gaelscoil, which still indicates that the term can apply to secondary schools as well as primary schools. Verbcatcher ( talk) 03:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Which it can. The Gaelscoileanna website has sections for both primary and post-primary schools, and it doesn't seem to refer to post-primary schools as gaelcholáistí. The SchoolDays website uses the term "Primary Gaelscoil", indicating that it is not the only kind of gaelscoil. That's why the articles need the attention of an expert. Scolaire ( talk) 06:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, a Gaelscoil refers to any school which uses the medium of Irish (primary or secondary school). The term Gaelcholáiste is used by some secondary schools in their name alone (not all, and if they do it will usually be Coláiste rather than Gaelcholáiste). As far as I understand, it's analogous to a regular Secondary School (legal definition) referring to itself as a College, the use of the latter has no bearing on the curriculum, etc. Wasechun tashunka ( talk) 19:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 18/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Ireland.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Ireland, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated several redirects to Ireland for discussion at RfD today -

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 24#Scotia major ( Scotia major and Mikra Britannia)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 24#Ireland and Ulster ( Ireland and Ulster)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 24#Ireland Ulster ( Ireland Ulster)
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 24#Ireland (region) ( Ireland (region))

You are invited to participate in all of the above discussions. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on the move discussion at Talk:Varadkar. Thanks.-- Nevé – selbert 20:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The article United People has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: lacks notability.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. BSOleader ( talk) 16:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Is that Charles O'Carroll Kelly's party? Scolaire ( talk) 16:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking to improve the localisation of Irish imagery on Commons later this year, but I'm not sure of the best approach. I believe it that local identity is typically tied to townlands. Is that right, and true in both the Republic and Northern Ireland? In that case its the townlands that are the ideal end-goal for rural photos; but which intermediate concepts are also useful? Baronies and Civil Parishes? In terms of a potential hierarchy as it applies to the two images to the right:

1. County (Co Limerick) -> Barony (Pubblebrien) -> Civil Parish (Croom) -> Townland (Lurraga)
2. County (Co Tyrone) -> Barony (Dungannon Middle) -> Civil Parish (Clonfeacle) -> Townland (Mulboy)

Northern Ireland is complicated by the modern districts which often just ignore the historic units, which makes it hard to work with them. However, on both WP and Commons, the detailed categorisation is done via counties (eg Category:Towns in County Tyrone).-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct to use the County -> Barony -> Civil Parish -> Townland hierarchy. It has the best historic parentage and the best searchable online resources. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it true to say that the office of Taoiseach doesn't end until a new Taoiseach is appointed? Alternatively, might an analogous situation of sede vacante be said to exist upon the resignation of a Taoiseach? Is there a Taoiseach between the resignation of one and the appointment of another? If so, what is the Constitutional basis for it? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly are you going to use this information? I can't find any reference in the news or in books to a "sede vacante" in Irish politics, so I can't envision any WP article where the fact – true or not – might be added without it being OR. Scolaire ( talk) 10:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's an analogy, nothing more. There must be a legal ref one way or another to the situation. Is there an interregnum or not? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If a taoiseach died in office then presumably there would be a vacancy until the next one was appointed. Verbcatcher ( talk) 23:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought they got a special dispensation to continue their work in heaven? CalzGuy ( talk) 03:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If a Taoiseach dies in office, then the Tanaiste becomes head of Govt. But what happens if he just resigns? Is there a Taoiseach or just a Tanaiste? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place about whether a series of templates used to generate references to the work of Leigh Rayment fall within Wikipedia's content guideline to use reliable sources, or alternatively whether they should be deprecated and tagged with {{ Self-published source}} and/or {{ Better source}}.

• {{ Rayment}}, used on 2595 pages
• {{ Rayment-hc}}, used on 6019 pages
• {{ Rayment-bt}}, used on 2184 pages
• {{ Rayment-pc}}, used on 6 pages
• {{ Rayment-bd}}, used on 23 pages

These templates are used for referencing over 10,000 articles relating to the House of Commons of England, the House of Commons of Ireland, the House of Commons of England, the House of Commons of Great Britain, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and the peerages and baronetcies of the islands of Ireland and Great Britain.

Since whatever decision is made will effect so many articles, I am notifying the following WikiProjects of this discussion: WP:WikiProject England, WP:WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Northern Ireland, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject United Kingdom, and WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.

Your comments would be welcome, but please post them at WT:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Leigh_Rayment.27s_Peerage_Pages_.282017.29, so that your contribution can be weighed as part of the discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• PS 709 of the articles using these templates are categorised under one of the counties of Ireland. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Derry, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Derry (city). 29 of it sub-categories are included in this proposal.
A discussion is taking place to decide if this fits with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red is pleased to introduce A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman

• Create articles on any day of any month
• Cover women and their works in any field of interest
• Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
• Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Ipigott ( talk) 11:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I see the Irish Folk music project seems to be inactive but I pretty sure that someone here can add entries for the missing list of 2010-2019 and fill in some entries for completely empty 1990-99 and other decades found in the Template:Irish folk music. ww2censor ( talk) 17:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue that has been bubbling for a while especially in regards to "Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in <add year>". When exactly should we use these category? Most recently it seems to be going full-swing at Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint going by its edit history, where DagosNavy alone has removed it four times in the past month despite several editors objecting.

• It appears obvious from that ANI that the currently blocked editor @ Apollo The Logician: doesn't agree with terrorism categories being used at all in regards to any attacks by republicans as they felt all targets were legitimate.
• @ DagosNavy: appears to disagree with their usage on articles where the attack was against the state instead of civilians, as well as citing WP:LABEL.
• @ Minimax Regret: appears to have joined the dispute against their usage via interacting with Bastun.
• Several editors such as myself, @ Bastun:, @ MillycoverAshley:, @ Andy Dingley: and @ Jon C.: if I may be so bold as to claim seem to agree that any attack by a recognised terrorist organisation as part of its terrorist campaign whether it be against the state or civilians counts as terrorism.
• @ Canterbury Tail: has also been involved in regards to terrorism categories.

The oft used defense for their removal WP:LABEL does not fully back the argument for exclusion of the term "terrorist". Indeed the opening sentence of the full article states There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias.. It is hardly against caution and introducing bias by calling a spade a spade in regards to what is widely regarded by all but IRA supporters/sympathisers as terrorism. The exact LABEL section on that article states Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. - I doubt anyone here believes that the IRA's terrorism campaign is myth and disagrees that there is copious amounts of evidence that recognises the IRA's campaign whether it be against civilians or the state as nothing but terrorism. I have never seen anything scholarly or otherwise that tries to claim that the IRA carried out two camapaigns: one terrorist and one legitimate.

I formally propose that the category be used on all attack (added attack for clarity Mabuska ^(talk) 17:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)) articles by paramilitary organisations (republican and loyalist) regardless of whether the target was civilian or not. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Under the same standars, whe should use the category "War Crimes" in any battle involving the SS just because this militia was classified as a criminal organisation by Allied powers after WWII.-- Darius ( talk) 12:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this specific issue and is a matter for those interested in the SS, World War II, war crimes or whatever. This is about terrorism in regards to the Troubles and we can agree our own specific MOS for this area. So please try to stay focused on topic and not try to deflect the issue by referring to a completely different set of circumstances. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• A relevant definition of "terrorism" would be as a form of asymmetric warfare where the induction of fear and terror in the civilian population at large is used to sap their will to maintain the conflict. This can be achieved by attacks on civilians, the military or any arm of the state, such as judges, tax inspectors or police. This view is demonstrated by the PIRA themselves in the '77 Green Book as, "A war of attrition against enemy personnel based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their people at home for their withdrawal."

The PIRA are quite specific here, that attacks on the GB military are themselves the core of a broadly terrorist campaign: attacking the military, so as to shift opinions amongst the civilians. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree slightly with Mabuska here (and this might explain why the SS might not always be conducting war crimes). Where an IRA action was carried out for purely military, or purely criminal reasons, then there could be a case that this was not a "terrorist" action in the sense above (and scoped to that action alone). Some of the large flying columns actions before the establishment of the Free State could be seen as military, even if not fought by the army of a recognised state. Some of the larger drug dealing in the '80s was purely profit-based and was secretive, thus not providing a propaganda motive. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @ Mabuska:, should this not be a formal RfC? (I don't know, I'm just asking the question). Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a big need for that at present, unless DagosNavy wants to start one. The point here is to maintain what seems to be regarded as a generally held consensus, with just a few dissenters. Such an RfC would be putting forward the proposition, "The PIRA are not terrorists, or they might be terrorists, but didn't carry out terrorist acts." Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A RfC would be the next step in dispute resolution. A prerequisite for a RfC however is that we first of all actually discuss the issue rather than just peform reverts and justify ourselves via edit summaries. That way we can see if we can come to our own consensus or whether we need outside input. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

Noted, thanks. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Support the proposal with Andy Dingley's caveat that it shouldn't be used on all articles, just those involving actual attacks. Obviously common sense should apply, too: the War of Independence flying columns and drug dealing/bank robberies/prison escapes, etc., were not terrorist in nature by any common definition; and a reliable source should describe the attack as terrorist. If an article lacks such a reference, there should be opportunity to source it rather than a category being removed on the grounds its "unsourced". Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify I am on about Troubles era IRA, not the flying columns or whatever beforehand. The examples you provided Bastun I agree should be outside the scope of the category. I realise I used the word article in place of attacks in my proposal and have amended and dated the amendment above. My proposal was meant to be in regards to attacks by paramilitaries and now reflects that. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Attack on Cloghoge checkpoint should not be labeled as a terrorist incident - myself, DagosNavy and perhaps others object to its inclusion, while others object to its exclusion. It was a military attack on a military target. Minimax Regret ( talk) 19:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

DagosNavy is aware of this discussion and can speak for himself. As can "others". A terrorist attack on a military target is still a terrorist attack. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We should go to the heart of the matter, and this is the definition of "terrorism". There is a Wikipedia page that deals directly with the issue ( Definitions of terrorism). Well folks, I have bad news: there is no agreement even among scholars!. However, if you read the article, one of the main features, especially under UN and USA legal definitions, is the violence against "civilian and non-combatants". This American author (p. 136) gives us an interesting definition of "non-combatants" from an official US agency: ".. the term 'combatant' was interpreted to mean military, paramilitary, militia, and police under military command and control, in specific areas or regions where war zones or war-like settings exist...Noncombatants therefore included civilians and civilian police and military assets outside of war zones and warlike settings". Under this criteria, Warrenpoint, Derryard, the shooting down of British choppers and the ambushes and IEDs aimed at security forces in the area of conflict (i.e.: Northern Ireland during Operation Banner) were not terrorist acts, since the target were combatants in a warlike environment. Any attack outside NI, including those carried out on armed forces, would fall within this legal definition of "terrorism", not to mention Enniskillen, Mountbatten assassination, La Mon, Teebane, etc--- Darius ( talk) 23:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course these are terrorism: both UK government and the PIRA (at least their internal documents) agree on this: it is the use of violence to induce fear in others beyond the realm of those directly at risk, the usual amplification of threat at the heart of most guerilla tactics, from the NVA to the Sicilian Mafia. There is no limitation at all on who their direct targets are.

The US, post 9/11, takes a different view to most others: for reasons of both security theatre and federal infighting, they find it advantageous to now call everything "terrorism". Nor do I see why an anachronistic definition from decades and an ocean away would be relevant. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The PIRA distinguished between "legitimate" and "ilegitimate" targets, and avoided to target civilians deliberately (for political reasons rather than humanitarian ones, of course), especially during the last phase of the Troubles. Their use of violence was not indiscriminate, they shot, bombed, mortared and killed British troops and RUC constables not "to induce fear" or as "symbolic targets", but to attrite them and deny them the use of roads, as they did in South Armagh, a clear strategic goal. The ill-fated campaign of Lynagh before Loughgall was aimed to obtain the same results in East Tyrone (the use of transport vehicles for troops there was in the end restricted after Ballygawley roadside bomb). The main UN definition of terrorism is from 2004 and the American author cited a US legal definition from 2005, both well beyond 9/11. And guerrilla is something different than terrorism, you seem to use them as synonyms.-- Darius ( talk) 01:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

So was Warrington a legitimate or illegitimate target? Or as Apollo the Logician would have it, another glorious military victory over the forces of colonialism? This was 1993, late in the active campaign, yet very far from, "avoided to target civilians deliberately". Yes, I would agree that the PIRA made a late decision at the AC level to avoid such actions, recognising that they were now deeply counterproductive at a time when dialogue with the Conservative government in Westminster was active. Hence the gasholder bombings. However that did not stop a campaign (authorised at whatever level) that killed English children in a way that's still seen as more heinous in the English tabloid mind than the Birmingham pub bombings - a PIRA campaign against civilians in England that now "didn't happen" according to the re-imagining of the glorious Troubles history as a purely military campaign by the Republican revisionists of today, when it was just some boyos from a Midlands cell getting a bit over-enthusiastic and careless with warnings.

The PIRA pursued a campaign of terrorist bombings against civilian targets throughout the Troubles. There is no getting away from that.

The PIRA in their guerilla era (and I use such terms very careful, some like "legitimate" I can even spell all by myself) acted as guerillas and conducted military operations in such a way. By the 1970s, the notions of Marxist struggle, international revolution, the Long War and even just reading the books written by the Malaya-served CO of their opposing forces (Kitson) had changed this to a more propagandist and specifically terrorist organisation. Of course the old tactics of isolating the small sangars and interdicting communications to them were still in use, especially South towards the border, but the core of overall PIRA strategy in this Long War period was no longer to win a military ground campaign, but to win a campaign in the minds of the English. Draisine bombs were still part of that. Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Andy Dingley: Agree with you that Warrington and all the bombings and even attacks on military outside NI were terrorist acts, so disscussing about this particular issue is superfluous.

The "Long War" was a typical case of attrition war. The strategy is stressed in the IRA "Green Book". According to Ed Moloney the doctrine implies a "war of attrition against “enemy personnel,” a bombing campaign to deter inward investment, opposition to all attempts to create internal political stability, and a propaganda campaign in Ireland and abroad aimed at broadening support for the war effort". There is nothing in this statement supporting that the campaign was aimed to "scare" or "terrorize" British public opinion. The eventual "demand from their people at home for their withdrawal" would be a natural consequence of war-weariness, not induction by fear. The main target continued to be the British security forces and the main goal was " wearing down the British Government’s will to remain in Ireland".-- Darius ( talk) 01:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Rather than getting into a back and forth about what is and isn't terrorism, and when something could have been considered terrorism and when it wasn't, etc., it should surely go without saying that attacks by proscribed terrorist organisations designated as such are - by their very nature - terrorist attacks. In any case, I think it'd be useful to hear from other voices at this point. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Minimax Regret: @ DagosNavy:. Minimax it was not military attacking military. It was paramilitary attacking military. Proscribed paramilitary at that. The IRA were an "army" of an unrecognised phantom state so do not qualify as military in any meaning of the word. Also if you are calling military targets legitimate for a proscribed paramilitary organisation (largely made up of people who were citizens of the UK from birth whether they accepted it or not) that embarked on a terrorist campaign that included attacking military targets to influence the public by terror then I have to doubt your impartiality on this issue.

So if military targets are legitmate and attacks on civilians are terrorism then clarify what do the following classify as?

• Attacks on policemen
• Attacks on retired servicemen
• Attacks on off-duty servicemen

Reason for asking is because the IRA considered these all legitimate despite the fact none are military. The IRA attacked "Crown forces" and "collaborators" and civilians. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The RUC (I will not make any political and historical considerations about their behaviour) was part of or collaborate with Operation Banner, so they were armed players in the conflict. Retired servicemen certainly count as civilians. Servicemen on leave are another matter. They usually carried on personal weapons, and I can cite you at least two examples in which off--duty men repelled the armed attack (one in 1981 and another in 1992, both of them in Fermanagh). A number of off-duty soldiers returned fire or fight with their aggressors before being killed (1993 in Lurgan and 1994 in Armagh city).-- Darius ( talk) 00:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And I can cite many more examples where off-duty men didn't have a side arm or whatever on them when they were murdered. The point being they are in a civilian capacity when off-duty, which has relevance to this discussion if you believe the terror cat tag only applies to specific incidents. Also the RUC were still the police force not the military regardless of whether they were part of Operation Banner, and they were targeted by the IRA well before that operation or the Troubles even started. Indeed the operation was to support the police in dealing with the terror threat. And on that if they were to support the RUC in response to the terror threat then are attacks on the army by those carrying out the terrorism not terrorism? Mabuska ^(talk) 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Second appeal to editors to discuss the proposal at hand rather than discussing individual attacks. WP:NOTFORUM - if editors want to discuss individual attacks and debate whether they were or weren't terrorist, this is not the place to do it. Ye have talk pages. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It is highly relevant to find out what exactly DagosNavy and Minimax consider legitimate for usage of the term terrorism or not especially on grey areas. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I support the labeling but am very unhappy about it. If a better term could be got I'd be much happier with that. Terrorism is a pejorative label rather than a straight description. It does not describe the actions - it describes the people doing it and not very well either. There is a world of difference between attacking an army post and attacking a crowd of teenagers at a concert. Also the word is not extended to state actions which are intended to terrorize and subdue the population rather than achieve any military goal. It is too broad a word in some senses and too narrow in others. Dmcq ( talk) 14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Having given time for more input the only editor putting up any real objections is DagosNavy (out of curiousity do you prefer DagosNavy or Darius?). Minimax's comment focuses on the one incident and even then confuses the actors as both military, which is not the case. I'm happy enough to call a general consensus with the caveat that it's not unanimous but I'd be happier with further input from other editors for a more conrete conclusion. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

My real name is Darius, and because Iam quite busy in real life, I had no time to post my counterproposal in the last couple of days. I will comment Bastun appeal as early as this night. Darius ( talk) 12:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't rush if you are busy, there is no real time limit and the main thing is we are discussing this issue and it also allows more time for others to enter with their take if they so wish. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I partially concur with Bastun proposal, in the sense that the label "terrorism" should not be used indiscriminately. The heart of the matter, however, continues to be what we mean by "terrorism". Agree with Bastun that we need some outside help, maybe from Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism, specially someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism/participants.-- Darius ( talk) 23:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I also suggest notifying the UK WikiProject since most incidents occurred in the UK. Just to point out, the Terror WikiProject has a stated bias on the issue in regards to what they feel is terrorism. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make a proposal, I agreed with Andy Dingley's one. I've also not said we need outside help, I've said let other people in this Wikiproject contribute rather than just having a back-and-forth between two contributors.

Inviting in one particular Wikiproject which states on its home page that its definition of terrorism is attacks against civilians, when the issue arose because one of the participants here doesn't accept that attacks on military and police can be terrorism, seems... disingenuous. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not my intention to lure you on a site that advances "my" position...if you read carefully, they are open to disscus the definition since they state that "users are encouraged to add their own new focus". IMHO, the characteristics of "terrorism" are the same for Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Asia, etc. therefore a proper definition should be sought elsewhere.-- Darius ( talk) 11:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Do other terrorist organisations state in their own version of the Green Book that the military should be targeted to change the minds of the people? And on that, is the killing of Catholic RUC, UDR, and soldiers by republicans, which was to discourage other Catholics from joining not thus also terrorism as it is terrorising civilians who are potential recruits? The fact you find it ok to keep the terrorism cat for PSNI officer Ronan Kerr yet object to it being used for RUC officers and barracks that get attacked such as [2] despite both being police is contradictory. In fact you call the RUC a military force when they are not. Even the police article opening parageaph states that police are separate from the military. You want us to find a definition of terrorism whilst at the same time distorting the definition of military to vindicate the removal of terror cats (or even the addition of military cats on attacks against the RUC when the perps and targets were not military). What makes the PSNI not military and the RUC military in your eyes? What makes the IRA military and not paramilitary formyou? The more and more I delve into your choices for inclusion or exclusion and definition of certain terms the more I get the feeling of intentional bias.

I personally think appealing to the Terrorism WikiProject is borderline canvassing due to their explicit stance on the matter regardless of whether or not they are open for new interpretations. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I did say there are no real time limits, we do need to get things moving. There are questions that need to be answered. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hi Mabuska, sorry for the long delay in replying, but I was quite busy both in real life (family, work) and here in WP with a new article. Frankly, I do not want to become involved in a point-for-point discussion; I have already debated this with Andy Dingley on July 25, 24 and 26. The definition of terrorism I follow, as you can read there, is based upon American author Anthony Richards, who actually cites a legal definition, so you can easily find these answers by clicking on the link. According to this, an attack on operational forces (including police agencies working with the military) in a "war-like setting" is not terrorism. The correct status of the IRA is " violent non-state actor", not "military" nor "paramilitary".

Regarding your mention of the so-called "Green Book", these guys's goal (according to themselves) was to carry out an war of attrition in order to change the minds of the British, both people and government through war weariness, not by terror or fear. I insist, we should seek an opinion elsewhere, from an uninvolved party.-- Darius ( talk) 01:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

P/S: Don't forget to keep @ BrownHairedGirl: aware of this discussion, she was involved in a previous one.-- Darius ( talk) 01:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my own longer delay. Real life can take over quite a bit. I don't see why you feel the need to ping BHG because she was involved in a previous discussion as many other editors have been as well and as equally deserving of a ping. Also the Anthony Richards source you provide depends on how your interpreting it. Was the whole of Northern Ireland a war-zone? Are off-duty police and soldiers in or out of the war-zone? Indeed it is an American definition provided, not a British or Irish one, an American one. The first half of the page you link to is simply loaded with Richards own arguments and questions, nothing concrete or definite. On Wikipedia we can come to our own specific arrangements and the term commonly used for the IRA in the UK and Ireland both by the public and media is not "violent non-state actors" but paramilitary and terrorist. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Mabuska, I pinged BHG just because she has disagreed with the view of the majority in the previous debate; feel free to ask the opinion of other editors, no sweat. The operational area of "Operation Banner" was NI as a whole, so while in the six counties, any off-duty British serviceman knew that she/he was a target, just as any military personnel in a more conventional war can be killed behind the battlefront by spies, commandoes or air strikes. The differences between the British and/or Irish definitions of terrorism and the American one is at the very core of the matter. The British press usually labeled the IRA "terrorists", while the American dubbed them "guerrillas". The issue here is well beyond any WikiProject; we simply cannot have one definition of terrorism for the Island of Ireland, another for the Basque Country, another one for Corsica or the Middle East. Wikipedia needs a universal and unequivocal definition of "terrorism", otherwise we are at risk of breaching NPOV ( Bias of Sources) and WP:LABEL.-- Darius ( talk) 23:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

So basically you canvassed for support from an editor who essentially backs up your view? Personally to me it doesn't matter what definition the Americans use considering how loose they are with what is and isn't terrorism, the definition that is important is that used by the British and Irish. I am notifying the UK WikiProject for further input considering this subject is primarily a UK one (maybe I should have opened it there first on that basis but ah well). Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hardly canvassing, since a) she stated her position in a previous discussion without my intervention and b) this is an exchange of opinions or debate, not a poll (see "Vote-stacking"). You can also claim canvass when cherry-picking opinions from WProjects (UK/Ireland) whose members (the bulk of them at least) have a cultural perception of the "IRA" as pure "terrorists" (not the same case for Irish-Americans, for example). I insist that we need a global view about this issue, valid for any project in Wikipedia.-- Darius ( talk) 16:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to participated in a discussion of the proposal to merge Rochestown into Douglas, County Cork, following expansion of the latter page. I've only belatedly noticed that the former has fewer than 30 watchers, with only 2 recent editors, so a few more knowledgeable editors would be welcome to help us reach some form of consensus, one way or the other! Wasechun tashunka ^HOWL _TRACK 16:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The related Category:Peerage of Ireland duke stubs has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming . You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Dawynn ( talk) 02:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Following the recent deletion from Commons of several images of murals in Wales (see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Murals in Wales), I intend to nominate most of the images in c:Category:Murals in Ireland and its subcategories for deletion, on the basis that they are copyright violations and that there is no evidence of permission from the mural artists. UK Freedom of panorama does not apply to painted murals, and Ireland Freedom of panorama is assumed to have the same rules.

However, I am aware that murals are of particular cultural significance in Northern Ireland, and I want to give the opportunity for any images that meet the Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines to be transferred to the English and Irish Wikipedias, for use in articles with {{ Non-free use rationale}}s.

Article that may qualify for non-free images include:

• Murals in Northern Ireland - This article has numerous images. I think they are all copyright violations, except possibly for the image from the 1920s. I think non-free images can be justified in this article, but probably no more than four or five. We should select these based on the significance of the mural and the quality of the image, and to include the main artistic styles and political and community allegiances.
• Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike - this has one image which does not have a non-free use rationale. I think this should be transferred to English Wikipedia as a non-free image.
• Bogside Artists - This currently has no images of murals by these artists, but I think that a representative non-free image could be justified and would be valuable.

My view is that non-free images are not justified in most articles about individuals and organisations, including Bobby Sands, Red Hand Commando and Provisional Irish Republican Army.

The corresponding articles in the Irish language Wikipedia may use these images, and if possible they should be handled in the same way. Some of these images are used in other Wikipedia language editions, but the English and Irish editions are the most relevant here, and editors of other language editions are likely to follow our lead.

Does anyone challenge my assessment of the copyright status of photographs of murals? If not, then please assist me by selecting non-free images for these and other articles, and transferring them to English and Irish Wikipedia with {{ Non-free use rationale}}s. Verbcatcher ( talk) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to rerun James Joyce at TFA on the Main Page on his birthday this February, but at the moment there's too much unreferenced text, and 4 dead or dubious links. A little help? - Dank ( push to talk) 20:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

3 bad links now; I've listed them on the article talk page. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing this article from the list for now per this conversation. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Dank, have you thought of putting the article up for peer review? This would give you an idea of what needs to be done without throwing up the obstacle of a FAR. Scolaire ( talk) 10:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We're getting one or two new TFA coordinators currently at WT:TFA ... when they're on board, I'll ask how they want to do this. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Provisional IRA dead is currently listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Provisional IRA dead. Participation welcomed. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Three subcategories of Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in Ireland have been nominated for renaming. Feedback from this WikiProject's members at the category discussion would be appreciated, in order to help reach a consensus. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 19:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on Irish women during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the appropriate sub list Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Albert Cashier#Pronoun gender. Mathglot ( talk) 09:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Ireland

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 16:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Scolaire ( talk) 23:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please help. Xx236 ( talk) 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland#Current use of the flag on Wikipedia and I'd be grateful if other editors would voice their views. st 170 e 12:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

St170e, I'd recommend moving that discussion to WT:IMOS, as it's a question of usage in articles in general, and not a question of the content of the flag article. You'll also find all of the previous discussion at WT:IMOS and its archives, especially Archive 7. Scolaire ( talk) 14:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a proposal to edit Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles to clarify when it is appropriate to add an Irish translation to the first sentence of an article's lead, and when it is not. The Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Proposal. Input would be very much appreciated, as editing a Manual of Style without thorough discussion is not the most desirable. Scolaire ( talk) 09:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A requested move at Talk:Offences Against the Person Act 1861 has just been relisted. Please come and add your choice and rationale to the debate.   Paine Ellsworth   ^put'r there  19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This IP is reverting to defend a number of translations to Irish added to the lead sentence of subjects where this is not needed per WP:IMOS - subjects including Irish art, Tara Brooch, and so on, all unlikely to be referred to using the Irish form in English speech. Johnbod ( talk) 13:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It is sourced. What exactly is the problem? 80.111.231.187 ( talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing is not the issue. Since you seem to disagree on the meaning of WP:IMOS, and the wording could indeed make our normal practice clearer, I have raised the matter at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Irish_translations_of_names_for_topics. Johnbod ( talk) 13:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia policy saying that any added content should be sourced; there is no Wikipedia policy that any content that can be sourced should be added. There is also a policy saying that an editor should obtain consensus before restoring an edit that has been reverted. I don't think you'll get consensus. I certainly don't agree with it. Scolaire ( talk) 15:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

NB: The 80.111.x.x IP has been blocked as a sock of Apollo the Logician. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Twelve Apostles of Ireland Challenge is an edition competition seeking to create and improve articles on the Twelve Apostles of Ireland. Anyone in any language can subscribe and collaborate on building or translating articles relating to the Twelve Apostles. Medals and real icons will be rewarded to the winners. To participate, one just needs to subscribe here and start collaborating. Dia Duit! Leefeni de Karik ( talk) 20:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What's a real icon? Scolaire ( talk) 19:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean an actual religious icon of the saints, that, unless there be opposition from the first places, I shall mail them. Leefeni de Karik ( talk) 19:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Scolaire ( talk) 19:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Fictional American people of Irish descent, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with 7 similar categories.. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 (Ireland) currently has fewer than 30 page watchers and needs more eyes on it at the moment. In particular, a discussion has commenced on the criteria for inclusion in the "Campaigns" section of the article, and wider input would be welcome. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Loughs of the Republic of Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to "Lakes of the Republic of Ireland". A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Please can you help fix a category navigation problem?

I have devised a way of making it easier to navigate between Irish by-county categories: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/CatNavProposal

However, before rolling it out across ~2,500 category pages, I need to know:

1. Is there a consensus to do this?
2. Which options do you prefer?
3. What about Northern Ireland?

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/CatNavProposal for an explanation of the problem and my proposed solution, and please leave your feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/CatNavProposal.

Your input would be very helpful. I think it will take about twenty minutes to assess the proposal. Thanks. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Pinging a few experienced Irish editors who input I'd especially value: @ Spleodrach, Scolaire, Ww2censor, Sarah777, Laurel Lodged, Bastun, and Gnevin ... and also @ Fayenatic london, with whom I have worked on other category navigation issues. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

comment [3] by @ Spleodrach moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/CatNavProposal -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

CatNav trial implementation

This proposal has now moved on to a trial implementation. See WT:IECATNAVP#Trial. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This is unsourced and unhistorical. How may it be removed? Fergananim ( talk) 15:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be done through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but that is a complicated procedure and not to be undertaken by someone who doesn't know exactly what they're doing. Maybe some WikiProject member with experience would be willing to do the donkey work for you. Scolaire ( talk) 17:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Been around since 2010 I see! It might be easier to propose a merge and redirect to Gaelic warfare, where any scraps of value can be preserved. Needless to say, that does not abound in references either. Johnbod ( talk) 18:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have looked, and cannot find any references to support it. So there is nothing worth merging. The editor seems to have left us years ago. Fergananim ( talk) 17:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:16th-century British medical doctors, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. Note that the discussion relates to the geographical, political and chronological scope of the term "British" which is why Ireland falls into its scope. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Loughs of Northern Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion along with its 6 sub-categories. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I managed to make Primitive Irish a featured article in Portuguese, it took me a lot of research and the results are good, I'm sure we could use it to improve the tiny respective article here in English. I'll start. Leefeni de Karik ( talk) 02:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well done! SeoR ( talk) 05:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

National Party (Ireland) includes this in the lead but does not elaborate on it anywhere in its body. It's attributed to a broken link that appears to be a first-party source, but I suspect they are only using it as a clumsy euphemism for Irish reunification.

Our Irish republicanism article appears to be mostly historical, and discusses a period when "Republicanism" and "Home Rule" were opposing factions of the Irish independence movement; but in a contemporary southern context I'm fairly certain no one is seriously arguing for a return to monarchy, so it could only make sense if it means "Northern Ireland should be incorporated into the Republic".

I know people in Ireland are largely aware of "Republican" and "pro-reunification" being basically coterminous, but it seems like the kind of confusing term we should avoid when even the article it links to is mostly about pre-independence republicanism. (It's exceptionally misleading when describing certain "Irish Alt-Right" groups that seem to be in favour of a unified Ireland under a fascist or theocratic dictatorship, which would probably be better described as anti-republican.)

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 09:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thought - why not try this logic out on the Americans? Both the Republican and Democratic parties are clearly badly misnamed. I think they should be told. Johnbod ( talk) 12:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but having grown up in Ireland I'm pretty sure most Irish readers of Wikipedia know what those words mean in an American context, so I'd be willing to guess the same is true of other English-speakers around the world; the Irish context is ... actually I don't know; I can confidently say that virtually no one in Japan, regardless of English level or likelihood of their forming part of en.wiki's target readership, would be familiar with it. More to the point, though, those American political parties are both proper names, so we can't really sub-out more-specific/less-misleading names, whereas "Irish [r/R]epublicanism" refers to an ideology, or rather a set of related ideologies. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 13:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The National Party is an outlier. It is a reactionary party, one of whose objects is a reversion to the old Article 2 of the Constitution: "The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas." This is not enough on its own to call it "Irish republican" or "Irish nationalist". OTOH, there is more to Irish republicanism than merely an aspiration to Irish reunification. It is traditionally anti-establishment, and more often than not it has been associated with a physical force movement. It has not always been left wing, but it has never been far-right. The Irish republicanism article is not very good, other than as history, but this is largely because there is a dearth of good sources on Irish republican theory or ideology. I think it would be fair to say that most people in Ireland and Britain would have an instinctive idea of what "Irish republican" means, but would have difficulty putting it into words, except maybe in simplistic terms like "pro-IRA". Obviously, this is not very helpful to people in Japan, but that's the way it is. Scolaire ( talk) 12:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a discussion at The Troubles about the suitability of an image in the infobox. Input from interested editors would be welcome. Scolaire ( talk) 18:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that oireachtas.ie has a header that mentions switching over to a new site on 14 May 2018. This might break external links to that site, so they might need updating. Autarch ( talk) 18:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Won't the beta site become the new version of oireachtas.ie or is my understanding wrong? Spleodrach ( talk) 18:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello all - as a Carlovian I'm not the most objective person to weigh in on this, but given it is an Irish topic I thought I would direct people to the nomination for deletion of the article about Darrers. You might all agree with the nomination of course! Smirkybec ( talk) 11:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place about the inclusion of disappeared people who are not part of the "Disappeared" or the articles scope. More input would be appreciated. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@ The C of E: and @ Steven a91: have removed the word "national" from the Ireland national rugby union team article without any discussion or consensus. No explanation given. I am pretty sure no Irish Wikipedia editor would be in favour of this move. Djln Djln ( talk) 14:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The first port of call in any dispute is the article talk page. If the discussion there is unproductive, then it's appropriate to go to a WikiProject. I have started a discussion for you there. Scolaire ( talk) 16:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Folks, I would like to hear a few ideas upon the form of names used in many Irish biographical articles. This one is an example. It seems very strange to refer to people like him by the English form of their names, especially in this case when people like him barely spoke English and were deeply opposed to all things English. I am not asking for the article to be rewritten as Gaeilge, but to respect such aspects of their lives and insist upon Aodh Ruadh Ó Domhnaill over Hugh Roe O'Donnell. I might add this is also good scholarly practise here in Ireland to use these forms for such people, because of the deeply Gaelic context of their lives, so there are a number of good bases on which to do this. Fergananim ( talk) 16:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously both versions should be in the first sentence, and redirect. Otherwise it is a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. I daresay this is gradually shifting towards the Irish, but given he was significant enough as a military and political leader to feature in British histories of the period, I'd suspect the anglicized version will win on a COMMONNAME basis for some time - for less famous people this won't be the case. You can see the same effect with continental figures - from Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor down; his relatively obscure fellow Kt of the Golden Fleece is Ferdinand Charles, comte d'Aspremont-Lynden. Those of the sources (for Hugh) that specify a name in their titles seem to bear this out. I was struck by "The Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell, Prince of Tyrconnell (Beatha Aodh Ruadh O Domhnaill) by Lughaidh O'Cleirigh. Edited by Paul Walsh and Colm Ó Lochlainn. Irish Texts Society, vol. 42. Dublin: Educational Company of Ireland, 1948 (original Gaelic manuscript in the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin)." - old but even a translation from Gaelic uses the anglicized name. Mind you, there might be a case for "O'Donel" already. Johnbod ( talk) 13:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Want to raise info that the GS has changed its organizational structure in 2018.

https://www.garda.ie/en/About-Us/Organisational-structure/Organisation-Structure-2018.pdf

The link is there for your information. Ominae ( talk) 13:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am able to discover, this is a name for Armagh. It's given in this (reliable, pay-walled) source as the birth-place of David Cunningham (musician), so I put Armagh in the page. An IP has objected. This is a WP:BLP, so it's important not to be wrong. Is there any room for error, any other Ard Mhacha? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Accurate and referenced - restored. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC underway here on the inclusion of mention of Joan Freeman's family. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused by this edit. Would someone familiar with Irish government please take a look? Rivertorch ^FIRE _WATER 04:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. The edits seems OK - Varadkar temporarily covered that ministerial role for a period. I don't think it occurs in some of the neighbouring systems, but in Irish government, where each (full) Minister is a special form of legal personality, embodying their whole department, it does happen that even the prime minister sometimes formally takes on an additional role for a time (a department, with whatever functions statute assigns, cannot fully function without a seated minister - neither Junior Ministers (not actually Members of Giovernment) nor civil servants can just cover). SeoR ( talk) 08:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please create the article The Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth of Nations to outline the historical relationship between the Irish Free State, the Republic of Ireland, and the Commonwealth of Nations, especially since 1922? - ( 101.98.104.241 ( talk) 12:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC))

There's a request for comments on whether the motto of the Red Hand Commando, Lámh Dearg Abú, should be called an "Irish language" motto, or an "Ulster Gaelic" motto. Any input would be welcomed. ~ Asarlaí 18:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Now that the order has been signed for the Irish presidential election, 2018, the pages of candidates/those seeking nominations to stand for election could do with more watchers:

• Michael D. Higgins
• Gavin Duffy
• Joan Freeman
• Seán Gallagher
• Gemma O'Doherty
• Kevin Sharkey

I'd have NPOV and possibly COI concerns about some of these articles. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Today I saw this edit and opened this discussion. What do you think? -- AFBorchert ( talk) 22:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That editor is continuing to edit other articles, and there is a number of discussions on Talk:Francis Beaufort which could do with some people with experience in navigating these sort of disputes. Smirkybec ( talk) 18:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I am an involved editor in that I have commented on the Talk:Francis Beaufort discussion. I think the Cecil Frances Alexander edit is poor editing and I believe it should say Irish there. But I'm not commenting there until the Francis Beaufort discussion concludes. I would also appreciate another opinion to know if I'm being more biased than I would expect. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 19:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a request at Talk:Noel Lemass Jnr to move the article to Noel Lemass. -- Scolaire ( talk) 11:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I've started a proposed new naming conventions for articles on railway stations in Ireland at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations). It's modeled after the other former conventions already established for Canada ( WP:CANSTATION, Poland ( WP:PLSTATION), the UK ( WP:UKSTATION), and the U.S. ( WP:USSTATION). It was written to follow the unwritten practice already in place as closely as possible. Comments and suggestions are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Irish stations) and Village pump.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 19:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Mass_renaming_of_election_articles,_bypassing_WP:Requested_moves.

I just used WP:AWB to count the Irish articles which are likely to be renamed: I count 860 of them under Category:Elections in Ireland.

After 17 editors participated in a poorly-notified RFC, the intention is to move them without further discussion, and without notification. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

:-( Seems an unusual failure of process. But maybe time yet for some more consideration. However nice the format (I'm of two minds on that), I would be dubious about both the way this was not-discussed, and the smarts of moving 35k articles, with inevitable tidying after (no negatives about the bot and its operator, it's just inevitable across so many titles, some messy already). As with many other items, I'd be happier to see such things raised when, for example, more articles are at least reviewed and classified by at least one project, more stubs raised to a reasonable minimum quality, etc. SeoR ( talk) 11:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

An RfC on moving the year from the end to the start of article titles (e.g. South African general election, 2019 to 2019 South African general election) has been reopened for further comment, including on whether a bot could be used move the articles if it closed in favour of the change: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format. Cheers, Number 5 7 15:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Number 57: I see you've notified over 250 WikiProjects, which is very good, and that there has already been a good response. I just wonder if it wouldn't also be a good idea to put a new RfC template at the top? Scolaire ( talk) 19:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean. You're welcome to do it though if you wish. Number 5 7 19:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added the template that was there. I'm not sure if that works, but we'll see. Scolaire ( talk) 20:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There's an RfC on adopting the proposed guideline for transport stations, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations), here. Interested editors are asked to weigh in.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 13:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a fairly regular meetup in Cork, in collaboration with Dublin2019. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 11:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Editors with an interest/knowledge of the Tuam Mother and Baby Home are requested to review recent changes and contribute opinions to Talk:Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home#Trimming_in_October_2018 if they so wish. Regards, Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Still very much a live issue... Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi members of WP:Ireland! I'm just over from WP:CRIN and looking for volunteers. I'm currently expanding the coverage of Irish cricket, from players, to teams, to grounds. I'm wondering if anyone who is handy with a camera might be able to take some pictures of these cricket grounds, all major venues currently missing images. Most are located in or around Belfast/Dublin. I would do it myself, but I'm on the south-coast of England! Any photos would be much appreciated by all at WP:CRIN. Thanks in advance for any help. StickyWicket ( talk) 17:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Moycullen a hamlet or a large parish? See talk page. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This may be ignored. The question has been rendered moot by the actions of @ Scolaire: with the tacit approval of @ The Banner:. Apparently, they interpret an invitation to comment, such as this, to mean "delete 57% of the sourced content". As a result of the deletion, nothing remains of the argument that most of the content relates to a parish, not a hamlet, since all the deleted material, quite coincidentally, related to the parish. Out-of-process emptying, while blunt, is quite effective. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page there, you have a strange fascination for civil parishes. And tou are trying to give them far, far more weight than realistic. The Banner  talk 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The RfC did at least bring me to Civil parishes in Ireland, where I learned something (in addition to reinforcing that the Moycullen article should be about the village, rather than a largely unused and obsolete subdivision). Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Banner, talk pages are the place for discussion of strange fascinations. No need for that now after the actions of Scolaire. I see that you and Bastun have failed to condemn his behaviour. Very telling of the mindset of all 4 of you. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Condemn my actions? The tacit approval of The Banner? All I did was to revert one silly edit, with a full edit summary. How is this suddenly my war? Scolaire ( talk) 13:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You better read it the other way round: there is no consensus for your opinion. The Banner  talk 16:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sincere apologies to @ Scolaire: - I got my diffs mixed up. His edit was minor. It was @ The Banner: who did the bulk deletion. No hard feelings I hope Scolaire. So Banner contributed above, knowing that I had laid the blame elsewhere, but stayed schtum about it? Well doesn't that just tell us everything we need to know about the Banner. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The personal attack says more about you, Laurel Lodged. The Banner  talk 20:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Laurel Lodged: I asked you on your talk page to strike through your attacks on me. If you do that, there'll be no hard feelings. Just put a <s> at the start and a </s> at the end of each one. Scolaire ( talk) 09:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Whilst the article can easily accommodate both entities as it has been done elsewhere for other places that share a parish and village (or whatever) name, however why not simply create a civil parish article for Moycullen instead? It is a geopolitical subdivision so is notable enough for an article. Simples. It also means you can say you created an article Laurel. Whoop, whoop! Mabuska ^(talk) 22:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hope we're all good now @ Scolaire:. Thanks @ Mabuska: I'll do that. Seems excessive for such a small hamlet, but that's Ireland wiki for you. So I take it that nobody is going to institute proceedings against The Banner for his out-of-process bulk deletion of sourced material during a live discussion? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I make it that The Banner deleted the content 11 minutes before you opened the discussion. This was the state of the article at the moment you first posted to the talk page. So no, not out of process. And as for "bulk of sourced material", there was one link to this page for the whole of the deleted text! You really do need to check your facts before throwing allegations around. And a WikiProject is not the place to go looking for condemnation anyway; there's a Dramaboard for that. As far as you and I are concerned, yes, we're all square now. Scolaire ( talk) 12:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

See shiny new article - Moycullen (civil parish). Two townlands have the Logainm ref. Help with the remaining 74 would be appreciated. Is Banner as quick with pasting as he is with deleting? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesus. Stop digging. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I second that. Scolaire ( talk) 18:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not the first time Laurel Lodges acts like this. The Banner  talk 20:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For Your Information, Laurel Lodged: it was an editor named Laurel Lodged who started shouting over the townlands as not being part of the village so to solve his broken heart I removed the townlands. And now I get hammered for removing them? The Banner  talk 21:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Laurels statement on townlands and settlements is inherently wrong as they exist in one or more townlands meaning they technically are part of the settlement. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

In the Logainm database, the hierarchy is quite clear: province → county → barony → civil parish → townland. Villages feature nowhere in that hierarchy. They are just features like rivers or islands. While it's true that civil parishes can spill across baronies occasionally, it's mainly quite coherent. A village can also straddle two civil parishes (e.g. Herbertstown). Moycullen village is not in the townland of that name; the locus shifted westwards following the ruination of the abbey church. The remaining article now has primacy for the name and it can focus on things that are pertinent to the hamlet. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the Logainm database is not a proper source for what you want. But it looks like you want to destroy articles about places in favour of articles about civil parishes. Even when those civil parishes have no real value beyond some administrative purposes as land registration. Even my hometown straddles four townlands, does that make the town non-notable, as you claim? The Banner  talk 10:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have never destroyed an article. My original work on Moycullen sought to give the village it's proper (low priority) place within the larger context of the parish. Most of what remains in the article does not pertain to the hamlet of course, but to things that belong to the parish. In Ireland, parishes, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are the centre of of attention, not the cluster of houses surrounding a particular building. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You were clearly out to destroy the article about a village by changing it into a civil parish. Even in this discussion you diminish Moycullen by calling it a hamlet (a hamlet with 1500 inhabitants). The nasty truth is that the civil parish deserves the low priority. Even the Catholic parish has more priority (as they are de facto part of the Civil Registration Office) than a civil parish. The Banner  talk 18:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Lads, the WikiProject talk page is not here for people to indulge in slagging matches. The IP below has offered some useful, relevant perspective and advice. Anyone who doesn't have similar recommendations for improving articles, just stop please. Scolaire ( talk) 20:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Galway Gaeltacht person abroad here. My tuppence on the original question - Moycullen is both. The small village / settlement is now the primary thing, as Ireland has become more “centralised@ but parishes are also important, in rural areas at least, and I think it was the right answer to have two articles. 83.220.239.41 ( talk) 11:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit irritated by the inconsistency in how Northern Irish people are categorized on Wikipedia. Looking at Category:DJs by nationality, all of the DJs by nationality are categorized by the adjective form (e.g. "American DJs", "Russian DJs", "British DJs", even " Welsh DJs" and " Scottish DJs") but not Northern Irish DJs who are categorized as " DJs from Northern Ireland‎". I don't like this at all! I once started a CfD to change the DJs category but it was opposed on the basis that all the other Northern Irish people categories use the "xxx from Northern Ireland" form. So I'm proposing to change it on a wider scale, changing all category instances of "xxx from Northern Ireland" to "Northern Irish xxx" for consistency with the other similar categories of different countries. Flooded with them hundreds 13:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Flooded with them hundreds: The naming of categories is not a WP:RFC matter, it should be discussed at WP:CFD. Where is this CfD that you once started? I would like to read up on the various arguments put forth there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes but this RfC is just to see what the Irish Wikipedians think for me to have an idea about how a CfD would result. The original proposal is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_21#Category:DJs_from_Northern_Ireland Flooded with them hundreds 13:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The CfD that you linked does not have your name on it - it is signed by TheMagnificentist who was subsequently renamed to Zawl ( talk · contribs) ( whose name is given in the page history). You say that you once started that CfD... are you claiming that you are also Zawl?

Looking at Oculi's "keep" !vote in that CfD, it is clear that the CfDs held at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 7#Category:Northern Irish people and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 13#Category:Northern Irish accountants are both highly relevant. So long as Category:People from Northern Ireland continues to bear that name, any suggestion to rename any single one of its subcategories to "Northern Irish ..." is doomed to fail. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a clean start. The first CfD was 9 years ago and Oculi's oppose was based on consistency with the parent category, which I'm proposing to change for consistency with people by nationality categories. Flooded with them hundreds 18:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The article Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home would benefit from some photographs before the planned excavations begin. Unfortunately the images in the Technical Report are (evidently) used by permission and so are not public domain. If anyone is passing through Tuam or lives near the site it would be great to get some images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 13:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just come across an error on the Tweed page and then found more and worse on Donegal tweed. Please see the discussion page of the latter. Does someone here feel up to it? -- Madame ( talk) 14:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland#Requested_move_18_November_2018. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

See: Talk:National Museum of Ireland – Archaeology. According to their website "The Life and Death in the Roman World exhibition has been temporarily removed to facilitate the exhibition Clontarf 1014: Brian Boru and the Battle for Dublin". Is that still open? It appears in the "current" exhibition tab, as does "Rites of Passage at Tara" - both were supposed to be temporary. Does anyone know what the current displays are? Johnbod ( talk) 03:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Foreign relations of Ireland. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has had input from few editors. Broader input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 6#Foreign relations of Ireland. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion has now been closed and the category renamed as requested. -- AFBorchert ( talk) 17:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Just came across this copyright notice on the Oireachtas website. It seems to be basically saying "feel free to use the images herein, just attribute, and we retain copyright" - I'm not sure if that's entirely compatible with CC-by-SA, but it would seem to be ok to reuse their TD and Senator images where we're missing them. (Apologies if everyone knew this and was doing it already!) Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Bastun: As I understand it, the Oireachtas (Public Sector Information – Open Data) License is based upon Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International but requires the licensor to refer to the Oireachtas license (which in turn refers to CC-BY 4.0), to properly identify the creator (either House of the Oireachtas or whoever is given as creator), and to retain the Houses' or other Licensor's copyright notice (see 3.2 in this document). In summary, there is more to be done than just “attribute” it and it is based upon CC-BY 4.0 not CC-BY-SA (but CC-BY is one-way compatible to CC-BY-SA). In my opinion, all this would be best handled by a special license template which would be quite similar to {{ OGL-3.0}} of the UK which is also based on CC-BY 4.0. -- AFBorchert ( talk) 17:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is it that Template:County Antrim says "Places in Country Antrim", Template:County Carlow says "Places in Country Carlow", and Template:County Cork says "Places in Country Cork", but Template:County Dublin says "Divisions of the former county of Dublin"? And why does Template:County Dublin not include places such as Tallaght, Templeogue, Ballsbridge, Clontarf, Raheny and so on, like the other county templates? Scolaire ( talk) 20:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Because as far as @Laurel Lodged is concerned there isn't a place called Co. Dublin anymore because there is now four councils. This argument was had before. Finnegas ( talk) 09:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Archive_16#GAA_club_championships_categories Just to jog editors meomeries of all the "fun" that was had bak in 2013 when I vigorously made the same point as Scolaire. Finnegas ( talk) 09:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is correct. Dublin is a former county and was replaced in 1993 by the counties of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, Fingal, and South Dublin. The places of the counties are listed in Template:Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, Template:South Dublin and Template:Fingal. Spleodrach ( talk) 12:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Spleodrach, Finnegas, and Scolaire: I am coming to the discussion a bit late, but just wanted to note that it is not entirely true to say, as Spleodrach did, that Dublin is a former county.

It was indeed abolished in 1992 as a local govt area, but it remains in use for other state-derived purposes which include vehicle registration and the land registry. There may be more official uses which I am unaware of, or maybe not. But there are certainly many informal uses.

I think that current structure of the Template:County Dublin works OK, but I just wanted to stress that the legal situation isn't as clearcut as some assume.

Further muddiness is illustrated by Scolaire's initial example of Template:County Antrim. All 6 counties in Norniron were abolished for local govt purposes by the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 and the Local Government (Boundaries) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. However, like County Dublin, they retain some uses, including Lieutenancy areas and vehicle registration.

My own experience of Norniron is that that the counties are still used as the primary informal geographical divisions. I have never had anyone tell me that they are from Newry and Mourne or Newry, Mourne and Down. People will identify location by county or by town/village, as far as I can see neither the 1972–2015 districts nor the post-2015 districts have supplanted the counties as commonly-used geographical divisions.

Obviously my anecdotal observations are in no way a reliable source, but checking confirms my experience. See e.g. this Gnews search for "County Tyrone". The news media are still using the counties.

And then there are Rural districts. For local govt purposes, they were abolished over 90 years ago, by the Local Government Act 1925. However, they continue to be used for statistical purposes and for defining constituencies: see e.g. the Electoral (Amendment) (Dáil Constituencies) Act 2017. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, BHG. You expanded my point about County Antrim, which I probably should have done in the first place. Template:County Antrim does not say "former county of Antrim", and there exists no template for Newry, Mourne and Down, or any other Northern Ireland district. In this context, "Dublin is a former county" is not a useful statement. Templates should have consistency. The Dublin template should have the same wording as the Antrim template, since they have the same legal, historical and usage status. It also shouldn't say "Divisions of", since four of the eight entries are not divisions. The template situation in Dublin is messy; we not only have Template:Fingal, Template:South Dublin and Template:Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, but also Template:Dublin residential areas, which is not divided by "county", but instead into "Northside" and "Southside", and is in Category:Dublin (city) navigational boxes, despite the fact that many of the places in it are not in the Dublin City Council area. Articles have one or other template chosen arbitrarily, or no template at all.

I'll leave it to the template buffs to discuss what each template should contain and where it should be used, but the wording on the County Dublin template should go back to "Places in Country Dublin", unless and until the wording of other templates changes. Scolaire ( talk) 10:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging Laurel Lodged, because he is involved in editing the County Dublin template. Scolaire ( talk) 10:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Both positions are correct: Dublin is a former county (as is Antrim); both live on in popular culture & memory with vestigial ties to informal organisations (e.g. club orgaisations or car plate registrations). I don't think that there is a need to make the Antrim part of the template replicate the Dublin part, firstly because the successor entities in Antrim are not counties (unlike Fingal) and secondly the successor entities are not co-terminous with the parent entity. For example Newry, Mourne and Down District Council might have to be listed in 3 traditional counties. So the template should stay as is IMHO. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 18:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean, the County Antrim template should stay as is. I agree fully. But there is no good reason to call County Dublin a "former county" when we don't call the six counties of Northern Ireland that. All 32 counties of Ireland are counties in the same sense. Fingal etc. are counties in a slightly different sense, hence they are not called "County x" in their template or in their article. Whether they are "coterminous with the parent entity" or not is neither here nor there. The heading for the 32 county templates should be consistent. Scolaire ( talk) 14:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed link to the Ryan Commission used as a reference in St. Conleths Reformatory School to use the Wayback machine. Seems the domain may have expired - is there any organised effort to update the links to this site in this manner or are the updates ad hoc? Autarch ( talk) 05:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. The answer to your question is no, there is no organised effort to update links as far as I know. Scolaire ( talk) 12:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Autarch ( talk) 19:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for somebody with the expertise to fix a table at Leader of Sinn Féin#Vice Presidents. The details are at Talk:Leader of Sinn Féin#Vice Presidents. Thanks in advance. Scolaire ( talk) 14:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Updated per talk. Spleodrach ( talk) 19:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Category:17th century in Northern Ireland, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, along with several other similar categories.. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there is a deletion discussion underway ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy O'Rahilly) where not many people have taken part. It might be helpful if members of WikiProject Ireland could express a view on whether or not the subject of the article is notable. Mccapra ( talk) 12:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)#DS notice there was a request regarding why that article was subject to the discretionary sanctions authorised for The Troubles which has lead to me discovering that it is very unclear whether the scope of that authorisation includes "Irish nationalism" (the aspect that allows it on the Great Famine article) and "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" or not. If you have opinions about whether the Great Famine specifically and/or Irish nationalism in general and/or British nationalism in relation to Ireland (independent from The Troubles) should be subject to discretionary sanctions or not, please comment here or at Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)#DS notice. Please do invite comments from other relevant people/places (but to respond in one of those two places only), but this is just an informal exploration of views from those working in the topic area prior to a formal request for clarification/amendment so it's not vital at this stage that everybody is heard (that opportunity will come at the ARCA). Thryduulf ( talk) 01:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Related to the above, I've traced what I think is the history of the authorisation: see User:Thryduulf/Troubles scope. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The narrowest of the various scopes is "The Troubles, broadly interpreted", so I looked at what articles are currently marked as being in scope of the restrictions but which might not be if were chosen. Almost all of these are related to the Easter Rising, so before I ask for clarification from arbcom it would be good to know whether editors think the Easter Rising-related articles would fall within "The Troubles, broadly interpreted"? ( talk) 19:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Thryduulf. Anything on which nationalist/republican and unionist/British editors were edit-warring at the time of the Troubles case comes under the Arbcom remit. That definitely involves anything from the foundation of the Irish Volunteers in 1913, or indeed the foundation of Sinn Féin in 1905, onwards. That would most certainly include the Easter Rising. Earlier events, such as the Famine, were included because some of the aforementioned editors edit-warred on those articles. Scolaire ( talk) 19:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Scolaire: If you take the scope of the sanctions as "related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland" then yes there is no question they are included, however it's not clear that that is the scope and it's not clear (to me) whether the Easter Rising would be within a scope of just "The Troubles" and your reply doesn't make that any clearer either way. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Scolaire: fixing the ping. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I don't understand your question. If you're asking "did Easter 1916 fall in the period 1968–1998?" then the answer is no. I thought you were asking "was the ArbCom case exclusively about articles covering the period 1968–1998 in Northern Ireland, or was it about disruption and conflict on Wikipedia over a wide range of articles including The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland?", and that was the question I attempted to answer. If you want to know the whys and wherefores, obviously you'll have to read through the case, including the Evidence page. But if you just want the bottom line, then I suggest you go to the bottom line (the second from bottom, actually): "all articles [that] could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, are placed under an 1RR rule under the authority of #Standard discretionary sanctions."

By the way, the ping worked the first time, thanks. Scolaire ( talk) 09:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

My question is, if the scope of the discretionary sanctions is "The Troubles, broadly interpreted" would articles related to the Easter Rising (e.g. Tom Clarke (Irish republican)) fall within that scope? I ask this because the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorisation is not clear (the scope of the 1RR restriction is clear, and the reasons for it are clear, but the wording of the discretionary sanctions scope varies from place to place). As for the ping, I'm astounded it worked first time as I typoed your username! Thryduulf ( talk) 10:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. It didn't work the first time, it notified me twice the second time (which is also strange). Okay, read The Troubles. The Easter Rising, the founding of the Volunteers, early Sinn Féin and all the other stuff is there in the Background section; therefore it is essential background to the Troubles; therefore it is falls within the scope of the Troubles, if "the Troubles" is broadly interpreted. Will that do as an answer? I still don't understand why you're obsessing with the semantics of the remedies instead of what the case was actually about, but I guess that's your business. Scolaire ( talk) 12:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That answers my question. The scopes being different in different places has caused confusion at least once and certainly has the potential to cause more than that, so I want to clarify it to avoid that and prevent any problems with wikilawyers. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have now initiated the clarification request: Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: The Troubles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The request has now been closed and the scope of the discretionary sanctions clarified to: "Pages related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed." and the 1RR clarified as having this same scope. The request is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Clarification request: The Troubles (February 2019). Thryduulf ( talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I may have a biased point of view but I get the feeling tram stops (and commuter routes) are beginning to dominate Irish Railway Articles at the expense of historic stations. Most editing is by anon IP Addresses. Perhaps this has occurred at Harcourt Street Station where an IP user seems to be attempting to dominate what was an historic railway station with a nondescript tram stop. To some event when Cuchullain moved the article from Harcourt Street Railway station it might be argued the article got re-purposed to an opportunity to show pictures of trams. Anyway I have just done some reverting but quite frankly I'm not going to continue much longer with the number of unsourced IP edits what are occurring with Irish Railway articles at present. You can probably tell I am not happy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 18:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Djm-leighpark. I don't have a strong opinion on tram V train. But I have been dis-quietened by the pattern of edits by those (undoubtedly connected) IPs. In that they give undue weight to both WP:RECENTISM and WP:FUTURISM in a sphere of connected articles. (There's been more than a few scenarios where speculated or proposed or very loosely drafted infrastructure development "dreams" are presented as absolute and definitive gospel. In a way that flauts WP:CRYSTALBALL guidelines. And leads us back towards the days when more than a few articles unbashedly (and frankly ignorantly) declared that entirely notional stations and lines "will be built" "by 2015". Or that, without even the smallest nod to common-sense or the CRYSTAL guidelines, that multiple multi-billion euro underground and overground projects would somehow all be planned/approved/funded/started/completed/operational within a few months or years.) I, for one, am happy to assist in preventing a back-slide into that situation. Or, indeed, into discouraging a propensity to pepper multiple non-transport articles with disruptive, speculative, uncited and otherwise useless "entirely notional transport system navboxes". Or to prioritise actual/historical fact over recent/projected/notional "possibilities". Guliolopez ( talk) 23:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. I kind of like the approach and the result at Stillorgan and I think the article was the better for it; thats not to say the transport section couldn't do with some work within itself. I guess settlement articles where there is a non-notable (tram or other) station in the settlement are more suspectable to having a transport section with WP:UNDUE. In the end articles have to work for the general reader first and trains buffs second. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Municipal district (Ireland)#Requested move 9 February 2019, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I recently nominated Belfast East (Dáil constituency) and four related pages for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belfast East (Dáil constituency), but they need more discussion there on the best way to proceed. — Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 13:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have placed a request to move the Mount Errigal page to Errigal. Discussion and opinions are invited, Warm regards, Padraig1968 ( talk) 09:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You want us to move mountains for you? (sorry, I couldn't resist that one) Cabayi ( talk) 15:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Both @ Jnestorius: and I have set up pages for the upcoming divorce referendum, which we have agreed to merge: Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Divorce) Bill 2016 and Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2016. I'd welcome the views of others on what should be kept between the two pages. See Talk:Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Divorce) Bill 2016#Merge for the discussion thus far. — Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 14:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Could I invite some contributions to this question please? It's about naming conventions for Irish baronies and one in particular. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment at the RfC at Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland#‎Demonym on whether the demonym Briton is appropriate for people from Ireland before 1922. DrKay ( talk) 17:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion here, Talk:Donegal#Proposed name change of this page to Donegal (town), which might be of interest to this project's members. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a move discussion at Talk:Longford (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 April 2019 that may be of interest here. Declangi ( talk) 01:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Having just been re-pinged on this it seems at an impasse. Be aware that to some extent the result provide precedents for further moves. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion has been initiated for the Great Famine article, to consider "Great Irish Famine," "Irish Potato Famine," etc. Not many Project editors have commented yet, but I think it is important to contribute to an appropriate naming maintenance. SeoR ( talk) 08:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I happen to my sins for an independent matter to be watchlisting WP:ANI this morning for an unrelated matter and observe concerns relating to Ireland are in discussion at WP:ANI#Accusation of undisclosed WP:PAID editing / large scale reversion of edits relating to articles connected to Ireland which apparently has also made the Irish media. Not sure what to make of it all. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

What it boils down to is an accusation, it seems by an IDA Ireland person, and a new editor, as well as 1-2 past editors, of biased editing by an active editor on certain Irish articles over the last 12.5 months, Britishfinance. The waters were muddied by a misinterpretation that there was an allegation of paid editing against Britishfinance, but in fact what was stated was that paid editing was done for the IDA by a staff member and an agency, or similar, something we already know about (and which resulted in blocked IDA-related accounts and so on). Britishfinance semi-retired a few weeks back, but is addressing the queries. Personally, I found their editing to be careful, and we benefitted from a sabbatical or similar, with professional input on some tricky topics, and then they branched out into many areas - but there are always sensitivities around national tax policy, and such things as the delightfully named "Double Irish" (and "Dutch Sandwich" and more). All muddled up a little by some media brief pickups. SeoR ( talk) 11:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Troubles to be moved to Northern Ireland conflict. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. -- Scolaire ( talk) 15:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Snowclosed 14/4. SeoR ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an RfC on whether all Wikipedia categories should use the spelling "organization" (regardless of the respective country) taking place here. Number 5 7 19:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Dublin, a page which falls within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dublin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Dublin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ireland, which falls within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ireland and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Ireland during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I posted this on Talk:Sport in Ireland in January this year but no one seems to have seen the post. And on my discussion page in March, I asked where on wikipedia this question should be asked to have the best chance of getting help.

I am already aware of field hockey, rugby union, rugby league, cricket, quidditch and basketball. Basketball creates even more confusion for me, because the flag of the Republic of Ireland is used but the players come from all over the island. So I guess there are more All-Ireland national teams that use Republic of Ireland flag?

I have introduced in Swedish wikipeida, that if we use the national field hockey team template, {{hlhf|IRE}} it will automatically be the right flag, just like in English wikipedia (  Ireland). I have done the same for all our national team templates, the template for football provides football flags (New Caledonia, Ireland (1882–1950), Martinique and more), as an example.

So now I need help knowing which sports have all-Ireland teams. Thanks. DenSportgladeSkåningen ( talk) 16:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think a good start would be all sports within Category:All-island sports governing bodies in Ireland but there are many sports not on WP yet, so I will check for a Sport Ireland note. SeoR ( talk) 17:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the answer is pretty much all team sports have an all-Ireland team, with the exception of soccer? Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Not quite all, still. I seem to recall a split on, for example, some watersports - sailing in NI is with the Royal Sailing Assn (though there is cooperation with the Ireland-based body), and it's not alone. But I do agree that not many sports are left divided. SeoR ( talk) 21:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@ SeoR: Already done. I understand, but what about bandy, floorball, ice hockey, korfball, lacrosse and australian football? Btw, when I asked the question I had ball sports and similar sports in my mind. DenSportgladeSkåningen ( talk) 18:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@ DenSportgladeSkåningen: Sorry, took some time off. OK, let me try. Bandy, like ice hockey, has some history in both Ireland and the UK, but has struggled, due to weather, lack of ice rinks for one flavour, and the sheer dominance of hurling, with field hockey mopping up most of the remaining field. There *was* a Bandy Federation in the 2000s, I knew someone who joined, but I am sure it folded. While it existed, I think it was all-island, with a Great Britain association across the Irish Sea. Ice hockey has separate bodies in Ireland (which for years struggled along with just two leisure-grade little ice rinks, one each side of Dublin) and Northern Ireland (which somehow had 5-6 rinks), and I am pretty sure always separate teams. Floorball has about a half dozen teams only, but in so far as it operates, I think it is all-island; I have never heard of a formal national team (and I don't think it is on the Sports Council list). Lacrosse is rather bigger, having a modest but committed school following to feed it, and is, AFAIK, all-island. Aussie Rules, which has a combined League and Governing Body (I scanned the article recently, must get back to it), is all-island, and does have an all-Ireland team. I hope this helps, and will check further this evening. SeoR ( talk) 20:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above, yes, the Bandy Federation of Ireland, listed as "Republic of Ireland" in some sources, and a similar body listed as "Great Britain" co-existed from 2006; the Irish body was deleted from the FIB list (in 2017, it seems, but definitely gone by 2018). SeoR ( talk) 21:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. So I have not missed any "obvious" All-Ireland national team (which has a special flag). Thanks for all your help anyway DenSportgladeSkåningen ( talk) 11:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Content moved to Talk:The Irish Times#The Arnotts. Editors are invited to comment there. Scolaire ( talk) 10:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help source information on this person? It all seems to come from a single source, which I cannot otherwise verify, and frankly I distrust the source concerned as it has previous form. For the moment the only change will be correcting the surname form in the DEFAULTSORT. Fergananim ( talk) 10:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A difficultly has arisen at Ballymote#Hapsburg vs Habsburg over which name to use and what to name it. My edit to use Irish English on the article has been reverted. I will support the views of consensus. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Sorted as Habsburg. Thanks.  Done

I was just hoping to get some second opinions from the WP Ireland wiki contributors regarding whats been going on in the finance/economics topics, as various articles are within the projects scope. An ANI was opened by a different editor last month and it was messy. It was pointless really and only going to play out one way given there's no evidence. That ended up being a red herring for the real issue. An underlying problem regarding WP:Advocacy in this topic area. I had left the ANI a week before it closed to gather evidence, which was a time consuming and nightmare-ish process. I pulled up examples/evidence of various WP polices being breached like WP:Sockpuppets, WP:NPOV, WP: Bias in Sourcing etc. You guys are probably aware of the issues and controversy's around the Irish corporate tax system. There's no point defending the indefensible, but when looking through this carefully it seemed over the top. Maybe I’m imagining this. I'd started to prepare some evidence in My Sandbox (for now) with the hopes some experienced editors would look over this and tell me either way. I realise the correct process for policy breaches are various dispute processes, but just looking for 2nd opinions at the moment. Sorry about the length. I’d love to say that's it, but it's just scratching the surface. Renmap0o talk 05:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ Renmap0o:, and welcome! We always need willing hands, and it is clear you have committed some time and research access to this issue. Some review of the matters you mention has already happened, and more will, and all contributions are valued. We do look out not just for deliberate bias, but for the unconscious biases any of us can suffer from, especially on an emotive topic like tax policy, with all the questions it raises about fairness, national interests, intent, etc. Britishfinance is a relatively new user, and has been remarkably active, but they did explain (as one editor seemed to find this odd), that they had time off work, and they chose to spend this on many articles and tasks in Wikipedia (incl. thankless but necessary background work) - and they were quite transparent about what topic area first caught their eye. And as it happens, their sabbatical / career break / whatever ended just before all this blew up, and they had semi-retired. The editing was of a decent quality, with clear professional knowledge, but also improving over time, naturally and normally. Now, there is no perfect balance in life, we're all only human, and I, for example, have moderated a few points in some of those articles, where I felt there might be over-emphasis. I'm sure several will be willing to look at the material you have spent time gathering, and we can try to ensure the picture is balanced.

In turn, we do need to be clear on two things: 1) what exactly is the perceived issue? - I seem to be seeing alleged bias, and perhaps NPOV, yes? There is also mention of advocacy, but this I do not see. However, bias and NPOV we do want to guard against. Now, you also mention Sockpuppetry above, and malicious sockpuppetry is something WP takes very seriously. But is there any evidence of this? I have not seen such an accusation before. I have certainly seen no sign myself, though there was suspicious editing by IP addresses on some topics, but this was, if anything, "contra the tax haven points." If there is real evidence of sockpuppetry, we have mechanisms to investigate that. And 2) we need to be fair to Britishfinance, who has certainly worked hard, has done some editing of real quality, and who might rightly be feeling a bit "hounded" - we do not want to lose good editors - so we listen to their feedback too. The editor did, for example, answer a list of concerns from another editor, Nearly Headless Nick, in good detail.

Further, on a quick glance, I see some concern that Ireland is in raised focus - but this can simply be that this editor has the knowledge to work on this topic area, but is not, for example, and expert on the tax issues of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Singapore, or even the UK and Crown Dependencies. I do hope someone does tackle those subjects too. The fact is that WP coverage is still not fully even across all areas.

One last point, on that quick glance at your offered Sandbox, I see mention of "the community rallying round" as if there was some automatic (and questionable) defensive reaction. This I must, at least in my humble opinion, reject. We are a diverse group, don't know each other personally, and are actually often quite tough on each other. And any such bias would be more likely to arise among fellow veterans, but the editing you are concerned about is within the last year or so. I will now study the points raised in more detail. SeoR ( talk) 08:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was quite a read, and an interesting proposed "prosecutorial logic." On the sockpuppetry aspect, I see it *is* expanded on, so my question above is moot - and a rather serious allegation around an AfD is made. The sample address at issue, 31.187.2.14, is a generic (as far as I can tell) Virgin Media / UPC address, but if there are real issues here, this is one of the main tasks of the very exclusive user group Checkusers. For the rest, I need to think, while real life continues, and revert. This has used up my morning WP window. SeoR ( talk) 08:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This and BF again in the news but as an add on to a PC story. The short answer (I have rambling answer) is generally concur with SeoR. I have seen instances where BF may have over egged or over highlighted things but where that has happened it has already been oftimes been corrected. Where it hasn't the article talk page may be the best place to discuss. Renmap0o's sandbox is interesting but the approach is difficult because it is here and here and here so by the time one has been there the thread of the argument has been lost. A simples list of the articles and reason where there be remaining of a possible significant (albeit possible bias) issue especially in ledes, picture captions and section order placement might be more helpful ... and bring elimination of a problem with causing the SeoR a nightmare when I need him to investigate whether Mumbai soap has caused the Fry to slip and the journalists to not cop on to the press release. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@ SeoR: Thanks for the response and reading. Regarding the sockpuppetry, it's fairly conclusive. You would have seen some of the examples. I saw it on about 4 different edit disputes and their AFD. These are IP's 100% linked to their account and nobody else's through their editing work, IP lookup tools, contribution histories, coming out of the woodwork for their disputes and always happening to create a fake consensus on their side. Their main editing IP has been banned too and that's not even getting into how they use them to talk to themselves and their article talk pages about how great all their work is. If I looked carefully I'd find plenty more, but it's conclusive. Personally, I do respect the work they have done (and all of you for that matter) and I realise its a huge amount of effort. Let's be honest, there are serious issues around what's been going on in the Irish tax system. It's just when I look through this, it came across like one of those social justice warriors on a crusade and many people can see this. Hence the advocacy claim. The 2nd page they edited being that social democrat politician on a campaign against these exact tax structures was my first hint. As is the nature of most of the editing in the topic. Even last week, the latest dispute was adding in controversy to Gemma O'Doherty's page and arguing on talk pages about it. I didn't know who she was, having not lived in Ireland since 2009, but seen she was listed as a right wing type. I find those types worse than the left, but I did laugh to myself at the recurring theme in all this.

The issue for me is not the tax structures articles. I'm assuming it's been mentioned in the relevant ones that they are discontinued (but haven't checked). I think there are advocacy issues, but maybe have to drop it if it can't be proven conclusively. Regarding the general claims, sometimes they are true and sometimes they just aren't. Many of the sources (typically left-wing journalist) are probably questionable, but I wasn't planning on spending the next year of my life working full-time hours trying to counter it one by one. Most the information on WP is now painting Ireland as the worlds biggest tax haven, which it isn't, but what can we do? Spend years learning and inserting information about all the others to provide balance? I think we've been snookered there. The balance, undue weight and NPOV are by far the biggest problems. The sockpuppets are just gaming the system whenever someone challenges these articles (and filling the talk pages with favourable comments to block other challenges), gaming the system is what it seems to be (at least in this topic), along with some valuable contributions too. The main articles discussing the Republic of Ireland, the economy of Ireland, Central Bank, IFSC, revenue commissioners etc. etc. are mostly under this project and probably the ones where it was most unnecessary to twist them towards this narrative. It just isn't present on similar articles for other countries, even ones with questionable tax policies. Some others like "Tax haven" and "Corporate haven" I feel are huge over-emphasis/undue weight too, so providing balance there would probably be my second port of call given they are meant to be broad articles, not written solely about Ireland, which is mainly what the editor has been doing. "Leprechaun Economics" and "Green Jersey Agenda" are both trojan horses to push the "tax haven" narrative and probably should be deleted. Leprechaun was proposed by an experienced editor, but they rigged the voting system with the 31.187's sock puppets that only pop up for: 1. Their disputes, and 2. Their editing ie. log out or change device and continue editing the same work 3 minutes later on these IP's (on articles nobody else touches for months).

The "rallying around" comment was unnecessary and I shouldn't have said it. I think I was mainly saying I'd probably be the same in your shoes when someone turns up out of the blue with no evidence (yet) in such a situation. That it was the right call for the circumstances. Renmap0o talk 03:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Djm-leighpark: Sorry, I'm not very good at this. I'm sure it could be put together much better. I guess that's why I was looking for some feedback from the Ireland project contributors. Part of the problem is the scale of this thing too. When I pull out 40 examples of issues, its really just a sample of what's happened across the entire topic area, which seems manipulated regarding Ireland. The other thing is in all of these articles, the editing history shows one account inserting as much negative text, controversy, links, pictures and associations as possible. Generally speaking, it isn't anybody else doing it and you'll find the negative parts always come from them. That's why I didn't focus on large numbers of individual instances, diffs etc. The scale feels too large for that approach. I agree it would be much clearer to create an "article by article" list with the worst problems pointed out for each instead of an essay style like this. Renmap0o talk 03:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Renmap0o: My view of the big concern here at this moment is that it is you who are actually trying to stir things up making allegations behind BF's back on higher profile talk pages. I can't see any evidence whatsoever you have made any positive contributions to Wikipedia content, though assistance in removal of some possibly arguably biased content perhaps. I am to a degree wondering postulating whether you have failed to heed Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/NhN's advice. Cutting all the blarney and keeping it simples I want you to produce in your sandbox or elsewhere in your userspace one complete list of what you see as "Trojan Horse" articles and another of the top 3 other articles where you believe bias remains extant in the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 06:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@ Djm-leighpark: A lot seemed to be under the scope of the Ireland project (as above): "The main articles discussing the Republic of Ireland, the economy of Ireland, Central Bank, IFSC, revenue commissioners etc.", which were edited in this direction and the main reason for asking here. In terms of trojan horse I would say mainly Leprechaun Economics (the comments in this ones talk history and the AFD votes are mostly socks) and Green Jersey Agenda. As for a top 3, I might pick Tax Havens, Corporate Haven and maybe Conduit OFC’s or Corporation Tax in ireland has mostly been filled with the negative narrative. The "Ireland as a Tax Haven" is bad too, but already picked over and not much can be done. Plenty of the other examples are linked in "Step One" to "Step Four" paragraphs in the sandbox. There's 12 links related to the sockpuppetry in paragraph 3 and 4, but if there's doubt, can produce more. Nick said to me about gathering evidence within WP policies, which was what I did, albeit slowly. I understand what you're saying about trying to stir things up and am happy just to leave it at that then (no more replies). I just wanted to do the right thing after I saw how bad this was, but in all honesty, it's probably not worth the time or stress and it hopefully self corrects at some point anyway. Renmap0o talk 09:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Huh. I'd like to make two points.

1. I've encountered Britishfinance on a few articles. I've found them to be collegiate, open to discussion, and willing to accept constructive criticism. When challenged on some of their (perfectly reasonable) additions to the Gemma O'Doherty article, for instance, they went and got better sourcing (even though the challenges were primarily from a now-blocked WP:SPA).

2. I find it incredulous that you've written the above wall of text about Britishfinance, without doing him the simple courtesy of informing him that that you've opened this section about him (and it reads like it's about him, and not his edits). Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD accusation?

@ Renmap0o: As far as I can read this serious accusations have been made or implied on this talk page regarding Britishfinance (who seems to have suspended editing) and an AfD. My concern is I can find no such AfD. I assume you are talking a calling raised by Jimg at Talk:Leprechaun economics#Proposed deletion of article which seems an unusual (and non-binding) course of action given WP:PRODNOM and WP:STFW give better direction. In any event this that is not an AfD. Please give a definitive and unambiguous link to the AfD you are referring to above. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Even though per my § Statement below, Renmap0o's handful of edits show they are clearly a WP:SOCK, however, because Renmap0o is also an WP:SPA (and likely WP:PAID by IDA Ireland), they have never taken part in the WP community and don't realise the stupidity of the accusation that somone would use sock accounts to contest a PROD. If Renmap0o's other WP accounts were active in working on Irish articles, they would also see that the IP-codes listed appear a lot on Irish articles (as they did in my ANI, per § Statement below). Ymblanter nailed it at the ANI, you are a clear case of WP:NOTHERE with an additional mission to degrade the integrity Irish tax-related content on WP for your employer. Britishfinance ( talk) 15:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal: Concentration to be on Tax haven content first. Ignore all Sock/Meat puppetry claims whatever and concentrate on content difference between say Old revision of Tax haven (13 March 2018) as a baseline and current version i.e. Old revision of Tax haven (16 May 2019). Number of times Ireland & e.g. Singapore mentioned on page has gone from 3 & 1 respectively to 99 and 33 respectively (This is any find of the string Ireland in the page for any reason whatsoever. This will need to be raised on the article talk page. (I am not doing the raise this nor am I evaluating bias here and I'd comment that article is not likely to be sustainable accurately medium term). Focus to be on whether current article is reasonably acceptable, I cant see two people agreeing totally on neutrality, balance and bias. We might need someone who could review to GA standard or higher ... that isn't me. This is just a starter proposal for 10 ... someone else please forward an improved proposal. Thankyou,. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Statement re above from Britishfinance

Only just seeing the above now (from Bastun's ping to me):

• As they have blanked their Talk Page, be aware that on 16th April Remap0o tried to delete and section-blank several Irish tax-related articles stating "Britishfinance", most likely a political organisation, attempting to manipulate the information by targeting a certain country and presenting one sided information, and with a link to a newspaper article where IDA Ireland called me a "paid agent".
• The case went to an ANI where it was shown that it was the IDA Ireland who had been manipulating Irish tax-related Wikipedia articles and using paid editors (some that are now blocked). Renmap0o was warned on their behavior by GoldenRing, and by Ymblanter for WP:NOTHERE.
• Now I find that Renmap0o had written a large "hit-piece" on me in their sandbox, with all sorts of allegations, and had been pinging users (but not me) to read it; the pings have been ignored.
• They went to Bbb23 to accuse me of being a WP:SOCK to get me blocked, calling me controversial editor, which was also ignored [4]
• I also found that Renmap0o had gone through all my edits to find the very few confrontations I have had with two other editors (both of whom had less than 100 edits, and at least one of which is a WP:SOCK), and WP:CANVASSED them as WP:MEATPUPPETS to, and I quote, build a case of evidence against me. [5] [6]

Two other points:

• There is little question now that a new editor with only a few edits PROD'ing, quoting SOCKs, using things link "anchors" in their sandbox edits, and pinging editors, it not a first-time editor to WP. As we can take it that Renmap0o is based in Ireland, their time-stamps on their edits show they likely travel to the US west coast, where IDA Ireland have their second biggest office. In addition, Renmap0o has not touched the Irish tax-related articles has caused the Paddy Cosgrave media storm (covered here), particularly QIAIFs, as these articles are not linked to corporate use of Ireland (the IDA focus). Instead, Renmap0o has diligently focused on deleting whole articles (e.g. Leprechaun economics, EU illegal State aid case against Apple in Ireland), or the relevant sections of articles (e.g. Double Irish), that chronicle IDA Ireland's newer tax tools (e.g. Single Malt and CAIA), created since 2009 to replace the banned Double Irish. Renmap0o is either (another) IDA SOCK, or working on the same agenda.

• I am not a perfect editor, however, despite the media-storm over this affair, no professional tax partner in Dublin (and many have been shown the articles) could fault them (E.g. Mark Gorman, Partner Anderson Tax Dublin). After the ANI closed, the Washington Post stated: "Politicians, policymakers, and the legal-finance profession responded vigorously and tried to discredit the Wikipedia articles. But none of these critiques have challenged their substantive truth". In addition, Leprechaun economics (an article which I did not create, but overhauled, and which Renmap0o tried to delete), was cited by Paul Krugman; while Double Irish (which I also overhauled, but not created) was cited by the Council on Foreign Relations as the "best source" for the topic. How many editors can say that their work in a specific area (and these articles are a minority of my edits on WP) had been validated by external experts, the Washington Post, a Nobel-prize economist and one of Washington's most powerful think-tanks? If I was guilty of the bias that Renmap0o alleges, that would not be happening. This is why Renmap0o is relying on trying to get a posse of SOCK/MEATPUPPETS to force their agenda.

Renmap0o uses a line used by another IDA SOCK, that mention of Ireland is disproportionate in general WP tax articles (e.g. Tax haven). The issue is that Ireland is either the #1, or close to #1, in almost all notable tax haven categories that the most notable tax academics cover (and who are the basis for the overhaul of all WP tax articles, not tax NGOs as Renmap0o alledges above). Ireland has featured as a top 10 tax haven on every academic list since the first lists in 1994 (the IDA despise tax academics, and someone had gone to great lengths to take reference of them out of WP tax haven articles); Ireland is the largest tax haven by scale, it created the largest BEPS tool in history (Double Irish), which led to the largest corporate tax fine in history (Apple's 13bn), it is the largest source of tax inversions, holds the record for the largest tax inversion in history (Medtronic), largest failed tax inversion (Pfizer Allergan); it is only second to Cayman as a shadow banking centre, is the 3rd largest Conduit OFC, and has overtaken Luxembourg and Cayman for SPVs. I could go on and on. Search for "Ireland" in the tax haven article and it appears in almost every notable category.

To the Irish WP community, which Renmap0o is trying to recruit to their agenda, the material that I have added to Irish tax-related articles comes from mostly academic sources or tax authors notable enough to have their own WP articles (and/or also their books). The facts used are a small summary of what is known about Ireland's tax system or the 1,000-page reports on it produced by tax experts in Washington, London (who are trying to copy Ireland completely), and Brussels. Ireland is not a tax haven because of shady/unknown dealings, Ireland is a tax haven because the US explicitly wants it as a tax haven. With a few exceptions, most of the tax material produced by NGOs is not fit for an Encylopedia; however, it is also very important to temper the IDA Ireland misuse of OECD sources (the IDA always quote that the OECD does not consider Ireland a tax haven, but forget to mention that the OECD only consider Trinidad & Tobago as a tax haven; and note, the March 2018 version of WP Tax Haven article had a long section implying that the definition of a tax haven was from the OECD?!). While technical, and academic, it is an interesting area, and should also be for Irish readers. There is a lot happening now with how the US is changing a 40-year stance on its tax policy, and that will affect Ireland. I hope to continue chronicling it for WP.

I advise you to examine the totality of new user (?) Renmap0o's few edits before engaging, and I would appreciate any admin taking some action. Britishfinance ( talk) 12:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment

There may indeed be enough to consider WP:ANI but I don't have bandwidth currently to make that consideration and it may be an energy waste. In general I don't think I see anything that can't be handled at article level within the normal scope of article development and especially as this approach has seemingly been successful at Ireland as a Tax Haven and Gemma O'Doherty. Again something like Modified gross national income might be better under a name that associated the article to Ireland (It's probably gone to far to be made generic), but again that can be discussed at article level. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 13:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion, the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Derry Independent Republican Unit. Mountain Battles ( talk) 16:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Over the last month, Fergananim has moved a ton of articles on Irish historical figures to what he calls the "correct form of name". Thus Rory O'Moore was moved to Ruairí Ó Mórdha, despite the English form being used virtually exclusively in history books. Worse, when he sees a need for disambiguation, he makes up a crazy long name, so Rory O'More becomes Ruairí Óg mac Ruairí Caoch Ó Mórdha. Can somebody with some expertise (I regognised those two names but not the others) check the articles and see if, as I suspect, they've all been wrongly moved? Scolaire ( talk) 09:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed this too and reverted some of them. This is deplorable. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 17:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This happened at least twice before with this editor (once each in 2017 and 2018, I think), but they showed an apparent willingness to listen on their Talk page, so I'd be disappointed if it's started again. There was also a problem or two with categorisation. They also acknowledged themselves not to be an expert on Gaeilge. SeoR ( talk) 17:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Special:Log/Fergananim shows something like 1,000 page moves dating back to 2006. That includes talk page moves, and sometimes he changes his mind after moving and changes it to something worse, but it's still close to 500 articles affected over a 13-year period. I, too, raised objections in 2011 at Talk:Rory O'Moore and Talk:Rory O'More, and since I wasn't reverted I thought he had copped himself on. Since both of you seem to agree that none of the moves were justified, we need somebody with a bot – and possibly admin powers in some cases – to undo all those changes. I'm not sure how to proceed. Raise it at WP:AN? -- Scolaire ( talk) 12:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd do that, if only to procure a warning. You might ask for a topic-ban on page moves, or undiscussed ones - perhaps he should propose them here first. I think there are tools to identify & relatively quickly clean these up. Ideally though, someone should check if his gaelic name versions are correct - it sounds as if not all are. Johnbod ( talk) 12:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I have raised it here. -- Scolaire ( talk) 12:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Probably nothing else we can do - I had no idea that the numbers were in 4 digits, or went back so far. It is a pity, as some of this editor's work is good, and well-based on scholarship. But as with another discussion lately, makey-upey Irish is not helping the language, or Wikipedia's readers, and does need to be called out. SeoR ( talk) 15:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Gaelic games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gaelic games until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Shane O'Neill (son of Conn) (the Shane O'Neill) to be moved to Shane O'Neill, with the latter moving to Shane O'Neill (disambiguation). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion at Talk:Shane O'Neill (son of Conn)#Requested move 28 May 2019. -- Scolaire ( talk) 16:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The above move request having failed, I am proposing to move the article to Shane O'Neill (Irish chieftain). Again, comments or alternative proposals would be welcome. The discussion is at Talk:Shane O'Neill (son of Conn)#Informal move proposal 31 May 2019. -- Scolaire ( talk) 11:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We tend to associate civil rights activist and human rights activist with modern times, but while looking at this article it struck me that such terms do apply to many such past people. Yet the terms, or at least chronologically appropriate ones, are not present for vast swathes of such Irish people. So, I am going to add these categories to this article, but if unsuitable or if they can be replaced by more appropriate ones, please edit accordingly. However I would argue that basic civil and human rights are the same, then and now. Fergananim ( talk) 13:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. If pursuing this, please avoid OR and SYNTH (ie: if other/reliable sources haven't described these subjects as "rights activists", then Wikipedia shouldn't). And also consider LISTN (ie: if other/reliable sources haven't listed or grouped these subjects under a common banner, then Wikipedia shouldn't). Guliolopez ( talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, good points. I would counter that by pointing out his actual activities fall under those headings, as told by the article itself. Which I presume is based on reliable sources! Given the rather massive amount of Irish people who during the 17th-19th centuries were involved in such activities, I am wary of editing any other articles on the same basis without discussion among editors. Fergananim ( talk) 13:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to load up the categories this way. You have added him to Category:Irish activists and that is fine; several of the other people in that category were contemporaries of his. The other two are anachronistic, and contain only 20th-century people and people still living. We don't "tend to associate" the terms with modern times; they belong to modern times. The categories are also superfluous, being respectively a subcategory and a subcategory of the subcategory. I am removing them per your invitation above. Scolaire ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

John Keogh currently says "political activist" in the lead, which I think is fine. I agree about the other categories. Johnbod ( talk) 15:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Geraldine Weir-Rogers v. Sf Trust Ltd is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geraldine Weir-Rogers v. Sf Trust Ltd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 21:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• See Talk:St. Angela's College, Cork. -- 2001:BB6:A84:6558:14E7:3A9A:D405:3B7 ( talk) 22:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, faaaairly important - "St." vs "St"! Johnbod ( talk) 01:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Mr Cooney went to some political meetings and briefly to jail. He became a doctor but is not notable for that. The source links are dead. Thousands of other people did the same as him and are not on wikipedia. 78.19.200.247 ( talk) 09:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean you'd like a registered user to nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is a complicated process which can only be initiated by registered users, and the article has not been nominated there. FWIW, I would oppose deletion, for reasons I will give on the article talk page. -- Scolaire ( talk) 10:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

All the sources are non-academic, and his activities as an officer, a doctor and a conspirator were very ordinary and achieved nothing "notable". 78.16.104.162 ( talk) 20:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Since when do sources need to be "academic"? Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Besides which, I added a long list of reliable sources at Talk:Andrew Cooney (Irish republican)#What did AC do?, which show he was not "very ordinary" and which the IP could use to improve the article if he/she was minded to. Just do it. -- Scolaire ( talk) 09:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)