Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:19, 27 January 2011

Irish Wikipedians' notice board
Home Irish Wikipedians' related news	Discussion Ireland related discussion (at WikiProject Ireland).	Active Users Active Irish Users	WikiProjects Irish WikiProjects	Stubs Major Irish stubs	Peer review Articles on Peer review	FA Articles on FA review	FA Drive Articles under consideration for FA drive

Shortcuts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Ireland page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

Archives

WikiProject Ireland

Irish Wikipedians' notice board

Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board

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

Edit this box

County Tipperary and County Dublin vs. the "new counties"

OK, rather than opening several discussions on every particular aspect of this question, how about we open one large discussion issue of how to deal with:

County Dublin vs. Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Fingal and South Dublin
County Tipperary vs. Tipperary South and Tipperary North

... with a mind to a generalisable approach to the question (with regards to categories, infoboxes, ledes, the works).

Rather than taking up MBs of space here, how about WP:IECOLL as a venue. Or a sub-page of this project page? --RA (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was thinking that 24 and 25 were progressing very nicely. They serve as tytpes for the larger questions. If Education can be answered in a simple, civilised fashion, then the larger answers ought to flow from them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upto you where you take it RA, however i feel that Asarlai's previous use of the term "traditional county" which we agreed against is now merited to help define between what are the traditional counties and the modern administrative counties. County Dublin does no longer exist officially, however it is still commonly used in various fields - thus i believe defining counties as either "traditional" as County Dublin is, or "administrative" for the modern counties such as Fingal that do have an official administrative purpose might be a good way to go.

The issue really does need clearing up as the "old" counties and "new" counties need a defining line drawn between them. We already use administrative for the "new" counties, even though officially the term "administrative" has been dropped by the state, and in some places on Wiki the use of "traditional" is used for the older ones. Thus i propose the usage of "traditional" and "administrative" as the line.

The term "historic" in place of "traditional" whilst having due weight, i believe would only cause problems with editors who'd feel uneasy with it. The same for using "modern" instead of "administrative". Mabuska ^(talk) 23:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They are just adjectives that are useful to draw a distinction between the two.

Also agree re: "historic" vs. "modern". "traditional" vs. "administrative" is best.

I'll post a link to start a generalised discussion this evening. --RA (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything wrong with traditional and administrative as labels and am willing to support them, unless someone raises a persuasive objection against them. --O'Dea (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. We may be back soon with new administrative counties, if certain government proposals are acted-upon, but the terminology will still work, and the 32 traditional counties will still be there. SeoR (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terms traditional and administrative work better than the alternatives. RashersTierney (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to clarify my conditional agreement, above, to the use of the terms traditional and administrative. I see them simply as neutral adjectives of distinction between entities, and not to be used to smuggle in any attitudes, such as "Dublin is a traditional county" to mean it no longer really exists. Nor should the label "administrative" be an attempt to diminish new counties, as in "Fingal is (merely) an administrative entity." A semblance of consensus is building for the terms traditional and administrative, but if they turn out in practice to be an abuse, I will withdraw my support of them. --O'Dea (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, if anything, has been agreed here? Can somebody come up with a succinct statement please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we need some kind of declaratio to finish this issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add something like the following to the MOS:

If it is necessary to make a distinction between the counties of Ireland that existed immediately before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (e.g. County Tipperary, County Dublin) and those created afterwards (e.g. South Tipperary, Fingal) use the adjective "traditional" to refer to the counties that existed immediately before that act and "administrative" to refer those created afterwards. Do not place the word "County" before the administrative counties created in the Republic of Ireland since 1994. When using a county as a geographic reference, including in categories, use the traditional counties rather than administrative counties, except where the topic relates closely to local government in the Republic of Ireland. Example:
Nenagh is a town in County Tipperary, Ireland. It is the county town of North Tipperary.

This goes beyond what was discussed above (and would reverse many of Laurel Lodged's changes), so I am putting it here for discussion. --RA (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the above - clear and succinct. I am concerned that in the absence of something, changes are "just happening" - for example, one Dublin page I watch is now not in any Dublin category, after Places of Worship in County Dublin was removed, and not replaced with anything else - this is really not good enough. I still think the 26/32 counties should be the basis for most categories. SeoR (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true to say that "Places of Worship in County Dublin" has not been replaced with anything else. It has been replaced with Category:Religion in Fingal County and with Category:Religion in Dublin City and with Category:Religion in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County. It will soon be joined by Category:Religion in South Dublin County]] thereby completing the quartet. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a significant improvement as greater specificity is to be preferred to lesser specificity and that each county should have its own category of Religion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you deleted the old category but did not replace it with anything - in the case I saw first, the new category was neither entered into the article text, nor created (it is a redlink, still, in your answer above). If you really feel the need to make these new categories, then the minimum responsibility is to do the job fully. But I do not believe this should have been done without community consensus.SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the RoI, unlike SeoR above, I think that the areas of local government, as defined by the Oireachtas, should be the basis for most categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, with all due respect to the Oireachtas, however well or ill thought-out its actions, I think this is only one element - WP also puts a lot of weight on common understanding. And the admin. counties can, and will, change again - there is much current talk now of merging at least Councils or functions. SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like RA's version of the MOS. I prefer this version:

If it is necessary to make a distinction between the counties of Ireland that existed immediately before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 (e.g. County Tipperary, County Dublin) and those created afterwards (e.g. South Tipperary, Fingal) use the adjective "traditional" to refer to the counties that existed immediately before that act and "administrative" to refer those created afterwards. Place the word "County" after the name of the particular administrative county that was created in the Republic of Ireland since 1994 (e.g. Fingla County). When using a county as a geographic reference, including in categories, use the administrative county as the primary reference. Mention may also be made afterwards of the common usage of the traditional name. Example:
Nenagh is the county town of North Tipperary County in Ireland. Its population is blah. It has fine broad meadows. Historicaly, it was part of the traditional county of Tipperary.

Laurel Lodged

(talk) 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

"Tipperary North County", "Fingal County" etc. are not the names of administrative counties per the 2001 act. The names of counties are simply "Tipperary North", "Fingal", etc (see schedule 5). The names of the relevant county councils are the [COUNTY NAME] + "County Council" (see section 11). Appending the word "County" to administrative county names is groundless and unnatural. It is not normal practice. This is in contrast to traditional practice where the name of the county is "County Tipperary", "County Dublin", etc..
Normal practice (in the real world) is to give geographic locations in Ireland (north and south) by the traditional county. For example: "The twenty-six traditional counties of Eire and the six traditional counties of Northern Ireland are used as the standard Irish geographical designations." (Faleer:2009) Thus, on the fine new motorway running from Cork to Dublin is located a sign (erected by either the NRA or local government) saying, "Welcome to County Tipperary".

--RA (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the facts in point 1 but come to a different conclusion. Firstly, schedule 5 spells the counties (correctly) as "North Tipperary" and "South Tipperary" (not as "Tipperary North" above). Secondly, my proposed MOV uses that exact spelling in the wikilink. I only add "County" afterwards to differentite it from the traditional counties where the name "County" would precede the county name (e.g. "County Wexford") if this agreement was to be followed. So to repeat, the names of the counties creaded after 1994 are "North Tipperary", "South Tipperary", "Fingal" etc. They are counties and so this needs to be made explicit. The options are "County North Tipperary" or "North Tipperary County". My suggestion is for the latter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tipp North/North Tipp was a typo. Regardless of it, the adding of "county" after (or before ) it is artificial. It doesn't have a basis either the legal nor common name for it. --RA (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the typo point. As regards the artificiality of adding "County" (either before or after the named entity), this artificiality is true for both the traditional and non traditional counties. As you rightly point out, Schedule 5 is the standard for the name to which we should adhere. It can be observed that the area of local government known as "Wexford" is spelled as "Wexford" and not as "County Wexford". Similarly, the area of local government known as "North Tipperary" is spelled as "North Tipperary" and not as "County North Tipperary". Getting back to the main point, that proposed MOV convention to be adopted is that the distinguishing noun of "County" (as opposed to Tipperary town or Leitrim village) be added to the name of the area of local government. The proposal is that this distinguishing noun be added BEFORE the name of the entity in the case of the traditional counties (e.g. "County Wexford") and AFTER the name of the entity in the case of the non traditional counties (e.g. "Fingal County"). Is there any objection to this proposal? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "artificial" I mean that they are not called that, either officially or commonly, in the real world. For the traditional counties, it is common practice to add "County" before "Mayo", for example, to make "County Mayo". There is no such common practice for Tipperary North or Fingal. You are right that there is no such region of local government as "County Mayo" (again as an example), just as there has been no region of local government called "County Dublin" or "County Armagh". However, "County Mayo", "County Dublin" and "County Armagh" still exist in a real sense as geographic locations, even if they have ceased to be as places of local government.

The difference, I suppose, may be legitimate depending on whether we are talking about "County Mayo" as a geographic identifier or as an area of local government. So, for example:

Castlebar is in County Mayo but is the seat of Mayo County Council (not County Mayo Council or Mayo County Council):
Nenagh is in County Tipperary but is the seat of Tipperary North County Council.
Newry is in County Armagh but is the seat of Newry and Mourne District Council.
Swords is in County Dublin but is the seat of Fingal County Council.

The difference, I suppose, is that we are muddling geographic places and local government areas. which is confusing since in most cases they overlap but not always. Cork, for example, is is in County Cork but is not in the administrative county of Cork. --RA (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming out of the above post, I suppose, my proposal is to refer to the administrative counties (or district council in NI) by their councils, and give them by their full name (i.e. "X County Council"), whereas to refer the traditional counties to as places and give they the traditional name (i.e. "County X"). --RA (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some merit in that. However, I'd be concerned that in a list or category that contained ONLY the tradional counties, that a reader might walk away with the impression that those tradiotional counties were still the basic unit of local government in the state. . At a minimum, some marker or disambig or See Alse in the leads would be necesary to alert the reader to this pitfall. Also, please note what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say on the topic. ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/140431/county/1581/United-Kingdom?anchor=ref708947 )

In the United Kingdom the county, or shire, has historically been the principal subdivision of the country for political, administrative, judicial, and cultural purposes. Each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom—England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales—is divided into a number of historic counties. These historic counties, in many cases, no longer correspond to current administrative subdivisions but remain an important focus of local identity. Some judicial jurisdictions still use historic county boundaries rather than current administrative boundaries; and cultural activities, such as the sport of cricket, are still organized according to historic counties.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with RA's proposed changes as technically its wrong as it sounds as if County Tipperary is the official location of the town, when in fact it is North Tipperary. No doubt most sources will state County Tipperary anyways but time will tell whether they'll eventually get with the times or remain stuck in the past.

The present intro to the Nenagh article is a good basis to work on. I'd propose altering it to:

Nenagh ([ˈniːnæ]; Irish: Aonach Urmhumhan) is the county town of North Tipperary, Ireland, and is part of the traditional County Tipperary. It is the administrative centre of North Tipperary and in 2006 it had a recorded population of 7,415. It is located in the former barony of Ormond Lower, and is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe.

Or something along those lines. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mabuska's analysis and can Support his suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No doubt most sources will state County Tipperary anyways but time will tell whether they'll eventually get with the times or remain stuck in the past." - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

"...and is part of the traditional County Tipperary" - That is a very odd way of saying that a town in such-and-such a place. Is Magherafelt part of the traditional County Londonderry?

However, there is nothing incompatible about what you have written with the guideline I propose above. --RA (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree with the guideline you proposed for the reasons stated above. Difference being that Northern Ireland has only ever had six counties and hasn't divided any of them up or redefined them into other counties, i.e. Dublin and Tipperary being prime examples. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mabuska, I could go with your Nenagh example. I'd rather not tack "County" on to the end of things, and you have put forward a workable model.

But on NI, I have to disagree - they redefined the admin. divisions entirely back in the 1970's, into a mess of "districts" and these, not the counties, form the basis for local government. But on all sides, the six county names are still observed too.

Overall, I think we should not make too much of this - the old counties continue, as they also do in NI and England, Wales, etc. - and those other locales manage well enough the co-existence of traditional counties and quite distinct current (and changing from time to time) admin. structures. SeoR (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your wrong on the councils. The council districts created in 1973 actually replaced the Rural and Urban District Councils of NI that existed from 1921 to 1973. Their creation may coincide with the death of counties as adminstrative divisions but that is all they share - one did not replace the other.

If you go even further back, the Rural and Urban District Councils of NI where preceded by those of Ireland as a whole (1898-1921), then the Sanitary Districts (1878-1898), and then the Poor Law Unions (1838-1898). Mabuska ^(talk) 11:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no consensus has been reached, and there are various ideas on the table (at least Laurel Lodged, RA, Mabuska), why is the creation of categories with e.g. Fingal County (as pointed out above, a construction with no validity in the real world) going ahead? This is not how WP is supposed to, or usually does, work. SeoR (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Category "Fingal County" does not exist. The Category "Fingal" exists but is not new (created in 2007). SeoR is perhaps thinking of the children of Category "Fingal". These children are identical to the children of Dublin city (e.g. education / sport /religion buildings). They contain the contain a consistent convention of placing the word "County" after the name of "Fingal". Who disagrees with this convention? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said this was about categories? It's about what to label the old traditional/historical counties versus the modern ones. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I think we can get one part of this issue settled and put to bed. We have by on large agreed that the terms "traditional" and "administrative" make best sense when differentiating between the old and newer counties. Whilst the issue in regards to settlement intros is still up for debate - i think there would be no issues with using the terms for the county intros. For example they currently state at the end of the first lede paragraph: "one of the thirty-two counties of Ireland". May i suggest we change this to "one of the thirty-two traditional counties of Ireland".

Funnily enough Asarlai had them like that until i proposed removing the term earlier this year. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What then would the lead for North Tipp say, "one of the modern adminstrative counties of Ireland" without numbering them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that this proposal meets approval through the deafening silence? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Tipp etc would be "one of the 29 administrative counties of the Republic of Ireland" jnestorius^(talk) 06:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be best if a diplomatic veil was drawn over the number. The link provided by Jnestorius goes t0 "Tier 1 local government". A quick count shows that 29 entities have the word "county" in their title, however an additional 5 entities have the word "city" in their title. As the section title makes clear, all are Tier 1 entities and in law have parity of esteem. This leads inevitably to the following calcultaion (29 + 5 = 34). This can only give rise to confrontation between purists, moderates and irredentists. For this reason, I think that the formula "one of the modern adminstrative counties of Ireland" which did not number them, would be accurate enough without antagonising either camp. I commend the solution to the house. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the word "modern" here. The word "administrative" is sufficient to disambiguate from the "traditional" counties. jnestorius^(talk) 12:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative however can refer to modern or traditional counties depending on context. I agree that not mentioning the number of counties can avoid the issues of exactly what number etc. should be used. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with user Mabuska. All counties are administrative. They have no other purpose. To say that 1 county has a function of administering local affairs while another county exists as a geographic area since time immemorial, is just nonsense. Even very old counties (and none is particularly old) originally fulfilled the function of administering local affairs. So "administrative" on its own will not solve the problem. It needs to be supported by either "traditional" or "modern" as explained above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So any more input on this or shall we summarise and set it in stone? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please summarize the proposal. I take it that "traditional" and "administrative" will be used to differentiate as most appear to agree with that approach, but that there's no proposals for dealing with specific examples like the lede for Nenagh? --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well i'll propose that since we can agree to the difference between traditional and administrative in use for county intros, that we implement it. The issue however around places within counties that have a different tradiontal and admnistrative such as Dublin/Fingal, Tipperary/North Tipperary will still be unresolved and open for debate and discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take the lack of objections to this as a sign of indifference or consent? Mabuska ^(talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Law, silence always implies consent. But for the avoifdance of doubt, here's my positive consent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew exactly what the proposal was, then I would know what I was consenting to. In general, I am happy to DAB, but only where necessary. So Tipp/Dub/NI then fine, go ahead. But I'd suggest that the guideline is documented in WP:IMOS first. And I don't see any need to go farther than traditional/administrative. 'modern' is unnecessary. Fmph (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To use traditional/administrative is unanimous from the looks of it anyways. Essentially Fmph, this issue has two fields - county intros and settlement intros. As county intros are the least problematic i've proposed we implement the distinction in its intro lede to state "one of the 32 traditional counties of Ireland". The settlement intro however is problematic as exemplified by Nenagh, is unresolved as of yet, and so my proposal is to implement county intros and leave settlement intros open for continued discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unanimity identified above may be more apparent than real. At any rater user Snappy seems to dissent. I'm assuming this by his behaviour in several of the categories devoted to the modern administrative counties (e.g. Category:Foo in County Fingal). In all cases he has deleted the word county leaving just "foo in Fingal". I'd be interested in finding out why. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICS, the proposal here relates to the lead paragraph of articles on counties, and it looks like something I could support. But the content of lead paras has feck all to do with the naming of categories, so I don't see why you infer that Snappy's view on category names is in any way relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally off topic, but I edited the category descriptions to match the head article, e.g. in Category:Sport in Fingal, I removed the word county. Others like Category:Education in Fingal were already done. Now the descriptions all match the head article name. Btw, as this is already off topic, I won't reply to more off topic questions here. Start a new thread or post on my talk page. Snappy (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic indeed. So can we agree to at least this part of the issue? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice. Took a bold decision to add "traditional" to the lead of the counties of Connaght. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-one objected to it anyways, its just the settlement introduction issue left to resolve now. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this new intro, it doesn't read very well. For example, now County Galway reads: "County Galway (Irish: Contae na Gaillimhe) is one of the twenty-six traditional counties of the Republic of Ireland and one of the thirty-two traditional counties in the island of Ireland.." The word traditional is repeated twice but never explained. There is no mention of the fact the Galway is an administrative county. The opening line of County Dublin reads almost the same even though it has been defunct since 1994. Traditional gives the impression it no longer exists, as in traditional dress. Also, why is it mentioned as a traditional county twice, once for RoI and then again for the island of Ireland. Maybe something like this would be better: County Galway (Irish: Contae na Gaillimhe) is an administrative county in the Republic of Ireland. It is one of the thirty-two traditional counties in the island of Ireland. Snappy (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Notice. For the sake of consistency, I did the same to all the other counties, including Northern Ireland. No doubt I'll be lambasted for this latter move. Nothing new there. Don't know who posted the above, but it's not a bad suggestion. I have to admit that I felt the double "traditional", while accurate, was a bit clunky. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the above (now signed). I agree, this double traditional is quite clunky. Snappy (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to say the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland ... and the island of Ireland. It should be the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland ... and Ireland. Why? Because if we write Republic/Northern we've already disambiguated it. Also, the term traditional should only be used when referring to the 32 counties. ~Asarlaí 11:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asarlai have you fotgotten that the NI county intros including the "the island of Ireland" bit was the stop-gap measure we, Scolaire and RA and all agreed to in June last year? It has been stable since so it should be left the way it was - other than the inclusion of "traditional" in regards to the 32 counties which i have done.

I also agree with Snappy's proposal - i did think it was clunky and am guilty of adding the double "traditional" myself and wasn't sure what to do about the modern administrative tag. We don't actually have to say "26 counties" which means we don't have to disambig it from the modern administrative county number (29 isn't it)? Just stating as Snappy did in his proposal is clearer and better i believe.

Just to state though - "traditional" doesn't mean something that doesn't exist anymore. A lot of things are traditional but still exist. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what users Snappy and Mabuska have written. Think we're making progress here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a pity you have to actually make changes to get people to respond - asking for more comments seems to achieve nothing unless you just go and change something. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So anyway, what is it that we are currently agreeing on, working towards? My last suggestion, a variation thereof, something else? Snappy (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really, you sorted out the problem with your proposal of: "County Galway (Irish: Contae na Gaillimhe) is an administrative county in the Republic of Ireland. It is one of the thirty-two traditional counties in the island of Ireland.". The only thing that needs debated upon and resolved is how to treat the introductions of places that lie in a traditional county but an adminsitrative county that isn't the same. I.e. the much stated Nenagh. Its in the traditional County Tipperary, but is part of the present administrative county of North Tipperary. I think the issue is how to word it, or resolve it or something. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tipperary category renaming

Two relevant discussions at WP:CFD:

Both are group nominations to remove the suffix "County" from the category names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein:

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

South Dublin categories

Proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 22#South_Dublin to drop the suffix "County". For example Category:South Dublin County → Category:South Dublin.

Your comments are welcome at the CFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was that the categories were renamed to use the format "South Dublin (county)", i.e the official name with an added disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin city categories

Now that categories have been created for the new administrative counties, and some naming issues resolved at CFD, we have fairly consistent structure for categories relating to Dublin:

Category:Foo in County Dublin covers the whole of the former County Dublin and the city of Dublin, but for most topics there will be sub-categories for the for the Tier-1 local government authorities in the area:
Category:Foo in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown

Category:Foo in Fingal

Category:Foo in South Dublin

Category:Foo in Dublin
Where the sub-categories exist, the articles go there and Category:Foo in County Dublin should be empty (see for example Category:Buildings and structures in County Dublin)

The top-level category for the city is Category:Dublin, and its sub-categories are all called Category Foo in Dublin

This is entirely accurate, but unfortunately it is also somewhat ambiguous because in common usage, "Dublin" may be used to refer either to the city or to the wider Dublin area.

This sort of ambiguity also exists with other cities which share their name with a wider administrative area which has its own category structure. In article text, this is not a problem, because the usage can be explained ... but it does pose problems with categories, because categories are applied to an article without the editor seeing what the explanation in the category text says.

This is a deficiency in the software: even the brilliant and widely-used tool HotCat allows editors to choose categories from a list, but only identifies them by name. A HoTCat-user can see what's written in the introduction to a category until they have added it, unless they follow a few unfamiliar steps which allow them to load the category on a new page ... and that's a clumsy process which many editors will not bother with.

To help avoid this sort of good-faith miscategorisation, there has been a growing tendency at Categories for Discussion to address the problem by insisting that category names should be unambiguous. That means adding a disambiguator to the category names, even when the head article is not disambiguated.

The city is clearly the primary usage of the term "Dublin", and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the article on the city is correctly located at Dublin. However, IMRHO there is enough ambiguity to cause categorisation errors by editors who may not be aware of the distinction between Dublin city and the now-divided County Dublin.

So I'm minded to propose that Category:Dublin be renamed to Category:Dublin (city), and that it sub-categories should be renamed in the same way. Note that this does not in any way imply that the city is called "Dublin City": the used of brackets around "(city)" indicates that it is a disambiguator, an artifact added by wikipedia to distinguish it from things of a similar name.

Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a sensible suggestion. Maybe just go ahead and propose it at CFD? Snappy (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Snappy. I think I'll give it a week to see if there are any comments here, because some recent renaming proposals have attracted a bit of drama at CFD, and I think it'd be best to give it at least 7 days here so that anyone who has concerns can discuss them here. If someone has a great reason not to do this, it'd be better to hear it here rather than wasting time at CFD, and is someone needs clarification that may be a pointer to something to include in the CFD nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I advocated a similar change of CfD on Oct 39th which was unsuccessful.

The reasons for the opposition were

"The category for the city is Category:Dublin. The only one that adds "city" does it through a disambiguator"
"This would not be the only case where categories had a disambiguator and the main article did not."
"per GO. It is far more likely that non-Irish people will think "Dublin City" is somewhere completely different from Dublin"
"per standard usage in category space and article space of Category:Dublin and Dublin. No reason for just this one to be different"

Similarly, a proposal renaming Category:Public houses in Dublin City to Category:Public houses in Dublin was carried - see Nov 8th where the rationale was "Suggest renaming these to match main article Dublin and parent categories Category:Dublin and Category:Buildings and structures in Dublin."

I contributed to that debate as follows: "Comment. The cats as currently named are a model of consitency and logic. It is their sisters and parents that are inconsistent and illogical. It would be foolish indeed to rename the correct cats to a known incorrect cat so that all could then be renamed to the original pattern at some future date. This folly must not be allowed to propogate.". To this, the proposer replied "Then nominate Category:Dublin and all its subcategories for renaming to see if others agree with you. I can't make it any more clear. But don't create new categories based on a new naming scheme that you feel is superior before your preferred scheme has been adopted.". Are you rising to the challenge of that editor? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drama, as I feared. :( Laurel, it's a real pity that you comment at length rather than reading what you are replying to.

Naming the categories "Dublin City" would be wrong, because the city is known as "Dublin", not "Dublin City". This proposal is to add a disambiguator.

See the last sentence of my opening post: "Note that this does not in any way imply that the city is called "Dublin City": the used of brackets around "(city)" indicates that it is a disambiguator, an artifact added by wikipedia to distinguish it from things of a similar name."

You could have saved a lot of electrons if you read that before posting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now listed Category:Dublin and its sub-categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 4#Dublin. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been renamed to the "Dublin (city)" format. However, this has almost certainly moved some articles which are "outside" the city into categories that specify city-only location. So if you would police that, that would be appreciated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin

Proposal to rename Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Dublin to Category:Parliamentary constituencies in County Dublin

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_27#Category:Parliamentary_constituencies_in_Dublin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barony naming convention

Quite a number of articles are now in place about the old sub-divisions of counties known as baronies - see Barony (Ireland). It is common for the names of some of these baronies to coincide withthe names of towns, for example Ratoath and Castleknock. This gives rise to the need for some sort of disambiguator. In the case of Ratoath the parentheses convention is used - Ratoath (barony). In the case of Castleknock, the full title is used - Barony of Castleknock. I think that it is unsatisfactory to have inconsistent styles and would like to get agreement on a common style for all Irish baronies. Personally I favour the Castleknock convention but am open to persuasion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME is relevant here. Do you have any evidence either way on whether a barony called "foo" is more commonly referred to as "foo" or as the "barony of foo"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As i understand naming conventions, when there are two articles that share the same name but are of two different types for example a town article and a barony article, then () should be used to differeniate. After being notified of this myself i changed all the barony articles i created to follow that standard for example Coleraine (barony). If however there is only one article on Wikipedia with that name then it doesn't need () or anything. So say for example there is an article about the barony of Castleknock and there is no other Castleknock article to get confused with then simply Castleknock will do. The ( ) is the standard on Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately both of the above are true which doesn't help. All the old genealogies, for example, refer to X, gentleman, in the barony of y in the county of Z. But it's also true to say that ( ) is the standard on Wikipedia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogies aren't entirely locations. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying. It's just that I'm hoping for an elegant solution. Failing that, I'd settle for a consistent solution. While there is no other entity like Iffa and Offa West, for example, in the event of the "Barony of Iffa and Offa West" not finding favour, I'd prefer to see "Iffa and Offa West (barony)" rather than the current name, even though it needs no disambiguation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no disambiguator is needed, don't add one. See WP:PRECISION. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we here agree to a style, who's to gainsay it? If we agree to the use of a prefix or parentheses, even if they are not strictly necessary, then it can be done. Where there is an overarching national need, policy can be bent. There is no need to disambiguate County Kerry, for example, as no town of that name exists. Yet all the sub-cats for the county contain the word "County" in their name. So if we agree to a style here, it can be done. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do you think it is a good idea to add a disambiguator when none is needed?

Your references to county continues your long-standing refusal to understand he difference between a name and a disambiguator, which has been explained to you at least 487 billion times in CFD discussions ... but I'll try again:

the counties are called "County Foo" because that is their name. There is no disambiguator
If a county was commonly known as "Foobar", we would call it "Foobar", unless "Foobar was ambiguous ... in which case we would add a disambiguator: "Foobar (county)".

In this case, if the Baronies are called "Barony of Foo", we call them that. If they are called "Foo", we call them that, and add a disambiguator of needed: "Foo (barony)". Simple. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a need to diambiguate the article it should be avoided to follow WP article naming conventions. So in the case of "Iffa and Offa West", it would be just that - the articles lede will establish that its a barony. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we continue in this direction, user JNESTORIUS will be very upset. At a minimum the baronies of Barrets, Bear, Barrymore, Carbery West and Carbery East will need to be re-named. And that's just county Cork. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please give Jnestorious a notification of this discussion (neutrally-worded, per WP:CANVASS) and let's see what zie brings to the table. More heads will lead to a more stable decision, whatever it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I created List of baronies of Ireland, I added redlinks for each (except the few that were already there). The convention I adopted was "Foo" if no disambiguation was needed and "Barony of Foo" otherwise. The alternatives are:

"Foo, County Bar" -- this is not adequate since in many cases the barony is being disambiguated from a town called Foo also in county Bar
"Foo (barony)" -- I think "Barony of Foo" is a common enough as a real-world formulation to be preferable to a Wikipedia-specific parenthetical disambiguator. It's not as common as "County Foo", but more common than, say, "Town of Foo".

Where multiple baronies have the same name, (County Bar) is dab; e.g. Barony of Carbury (County Kildare) and Clanwilliam (County Limerick). Alternatively, these might be Barony of Carbury, County Kildare and Clanwilliam, County Limerick. jnestorius^(talk) 09:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Mabuska has started moving articles from "Barony of Foo" to "Foo (barony)". Was consensus reached? If so then they should all be moved en masse, and the redlinks in List of baronies of Ireland adjusted.

BTW, I disagree with the assertion that 'the counties are called "County Foo" because that is their name.' The name is "Foo"; "County Foo" is a natural disambiguator, and as such has precedence over an artificial disambiguator "Foo (county)". I believe having e.g. Wicklow and Donegal linking to the towns rather than the counties was a bad decision way back when, and a violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Contrary to Laurel's "If we here agree to a style, who's to gainsay it", a Wikiproject cannot give itself the authority to opt out of the general MOS. jnestorius^(talk) 21:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but I agree with User Jnestorius when he says that "The name is "Foo"; "County Foo" is a natural disambiguator". All the old documents speak of "the county of X". Only in relatively recent times (i.e. the last couple of centuries), has this been capitalised and simultaniously contracted to "County X". As to whether the town or the county has first dibs on the name, I'm open to persuasion. Which is why it is an utter nonsence to deny Fingal its rightful name of "County Fingal". What's sauce for the goose...Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jnestorius i moved one article to fit in line with every other barony in Northern Ireland to the proper naming conventions as i was pointed out to as i intend to create the County Down barony articles very soon (after a long break on NI baronies). Other than Dufferin, i have created every single Northern Ireland barony article (save for County Down yet - see my user page for a full list) and have them all along the lines of the proper naming convention that i was notified of and asked to implement - long before this discussion was even raised (29/12/2010). I am only readjusting Dufferin to fit in with the rest of the NI barony articles that have such a disambig:

Armagh (barony) (created 28/09/2010)
Coleraine (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
Carrickfergus (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
Cary (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
Keenaght (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
Dungannon (barony) (created 08/10/2010)
Coole (barony) (renamed to that style on 27/09/2010)
Clogher (barony) (renamed to that style on 28/09/2010)

Where this disambig really makes sense can be seen in Keenaght. Its a townland and a barony. Do we call it the "Townland of Keenaght"? No, we call it Keenaght (townland). A town and a barony are two different kinds of entity - thus if two such articles have the same name they are meant to be disambiguated in that style. Article titles such as "Coole, County Westmeath" and "Coole, County Antrim" are two things are of the same type: i.e. settlements as opposed to a settlement and a barony so that is the way they should be and are disambiguated.

Though i must admit, i did totally forget about the Baronies of Ireland article and will update it if you don't object Jnestorius? Then again they would all be redlinked other than Dufferin if i hadn't of created the articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, County Armagh should be Armagh (county) since it is a different type from Armagh (barony). The reason it is not is that "County Armagh" is a real-world formulation, and thus preferable to an arbitrary one. My argument is that "Barony of Armagh" is similarly a real-world formation. I don't think we disagree over the principles involved; the contention is over how widespread the formulation "Barony of Foo" is.

On another side issue, I am sceptical of the value of articles about townlands. Are they WP:NOTABLE? jnestorius^(talk) 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i had to move your last comment as it cut into the middle of mine. Actually County Armagh is regularly known as County Armagh so there is no need for such a disambiguator. There is no need to adjust it to that style as it follows common name rules. Though you bring up an excellant name that backs up the style i adopted: Armagh (disambiguation) - look at how many different kinds of Armagh there is and look at how every single one of them in disambiguated. Other than settlements which follow the correct style for them - every single one that needs disambiguating is in brackets.

The only one that doesn't is the city as when you say Armagh thats what you think of first, especially as the county is known as County Armagh. County Foo is used in the news/media/web/letters etc. and always as "C"ounty. I have never seen use of "B"arony of Foo in the middle of a sentence meaning it is not being used as a proper name but as a descriptor.

Not everything needs disambiguated anyways for example Armagh city as the thing you think of most next is known as County Armagh. Only the less notable things need the disambiguator. The barony would be less notable thing.

And yes i agree about the townlands to an extent. I do plan to merge them all into a single article or so, but it needs a lot of careful planning and readjusting to make sure it doesn't look massively clunky. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your response does not address my core question; the exception being the statement I have never seen use of "B"arony of Foo in the middle of a sentence meaning it is not being used as a proper name but as a descriptor. Google evidence e.g. "barony of" site:debates.oireachtas.ie is mixed; but in any case I didn't posit a distinction between proper name and descriptor, but rather between a natural mode of disambiguation and an artificial one. The initial capital in e.g. Barony of Barretts is WP:NCTR rather than intentional; it might as easily be wikilinked barony of Barretts. Having said all that, if there is a danger of miscontruing the "Barony of Foo" form as somehow official then I can live with Barretts (barony) instead....

...in which case: there are 21 baronies in the list with county disambiguations because there is a barony in another county with the same name; how will these be named? There are different types:

Clanwilliam (County Tipperary): Clanwilliam (County Tipperary) (as is) or Clanwilliam, County Tipperary or Clanwilliam (County Tipperary barony) or Clanwilliam (barony, County Tipperary)
Barony of Forth (County Carlow): should have same format as preceding, whatever that will be
Barony of Bantry (County Cork): (town in same county) Bantry (County Cork barony) or Bantry (barony, County Cork) or Bantry, County Cork (barony)

jnestorius^(talk) 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points and when speaking of a barony in plain English we would say "barony of Foo" as that link highlights. Hmm i think if we used the guidelines on disambiguating things and places there might be a solution. Settlements use the style Foo, County Foo etc. to disambiguate between places of the same name. Well as several baronies have the same name but lie in different counties we could do the following:

Clanwilliam, County Tipperary and Clanwilliam, County Limerick

Forth, County Carlow and Forth, County Wexford

Bantry, County Cork and Bantry, County Wexford

This would mean that as each have a seperate name then that makes them distinct from each other meaning there is no need to disambiguate them with (barony).

And as the Bantry town article is at Bantry and the American Bantry at Bantry, North Dakota - then everything is disambiguated without a mess. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be wrong to use Bantry, County Cork for the barony; it should redirect to Bantry on the principle of least surprise. (I had almost added it already but I didn't want to pre-empt this discussion.) There are others of the same type; Newcastle, County Dublin already points to the village, so the Dublin barony of Newcastle will need some form of dab. jnestorius^(talk)

Hmm i was wondering about the Bantry one myself. Well for Clanwilliam and Forth the above suggestion could work well. For Bantry, County Cork and Newcastle, County Dublin - as both may have another article with that exact name or a redirect then they could add the disambiguator, i.e. Bantry, County Cork (barony). Though we could also use the above suggestion and add a "For the town of Bantry" link at the top of the barony article?? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I wrote above, I favour the Castleknock style. This would give us the following solution for the problematic ones:

Barony of Clanwilliam, County Tipperary

Barony of Clanwilliam, County Limerick

Barony of Bantry, County Cork

Barony of Bantry, County Wexford

Barony of Forth, County Carlow

Barony of Forth, County Wexford

And in all cases that need disambiguation from a town or townland but where the eponymous town or townland is in the same county, then use

Barony of Castleknock or Barony of Ratoath.

In all other cases, the simple name will suffice without disambiguation (e.g. Eliogarty). Though I have to say that my preference would be for this too the read "Barony of Eliogarty" for the sake of consistency. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To state "Barony of" when unneeded is verbose. If there is nothing else of the same name then the name of the thing alone is enough. So Eliogarty would and should remain Eliogarty. The style: Bantry, County Cork (barony) fits naming styles better. In fact unless there is a town called Clanwilliam in County Tipperary then Clanwilliam, County Tipperary doesn't need to state barony at all as nothing else can be confused for it as the other Clanwilliams will be Clanwilliam, County Limerick and Clanwilliam whatever. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the convention articles on naming articles, they say that if disambiguation is needed then to do so with brackets or with commas when needed. Using adjectives in the name such "Barony of" it says is "rarely used", but is permitted. So technically we are both following conventions.

However as the majority of the actual created barony articles follows the plain name without stating "Barony of" at the start, and not every redlink at List_of_baronies_of_Ireland has it either then i would argue against mass-moving articles to "Barony of". Mabuska ^(talk) 12:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming proposal:

Re-name Category:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland to Category:Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland

Rationale To complement the existing category of Category:Presbyterian churches in Northern Ireland. The other main denominations (RC & CoI) have this split by state. The overall parent category is Category:Churches in Ireland. Only 1 article at present but has potential to grow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very bad idea, as would be evident if you had studied the existing structure of such categories: "Foo in Ireland" has subcats "Foo in Northern Ireland" and "Foo in the Republic of Ireland".

So create a new Category:Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland, and populate it appropriately. Its parent categs should be Category:Presbyterian Churches in Ireland and Category:Churches in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BHG. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the country is named Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's wrong with Ireland? Adding Republic will just cause controversy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG - Alison ^❤ 16:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BHG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with BHG's alternate proposal on creating a new category for RoI Presbyterian churches and have it as a sub-category of Presbyterian Churches in Ireland and Churches in the Republic of Ireland. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have created Category:Presbyterian churches in the Republic of Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tree which can now be seen at Category:Presbyterian_Churches_in_Ireland makes sense. Though BHG, does the new Republic of Ireland category require the Europe category added to it? Only asking as the parent Presbyterian Churches in Ireland category page already has this tag. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Mabuska, and I'm not sure of the answer. You're right that the all-Ireland-categ is in Category:Presbyterian churches in Europe, and that we wouldn't therefore usually add a subcat to the same place. The reason I put it in was simply sloth: I basically copied the NI categ, which included it, and thought I'd do the same for both. I think that the answer to whether it really belongs there probably depends on whether one views Category:Presbyterian churches in Europe as a category of European regions (in which case the all-Ireland categ is enough and RoI doesn't belong there), or as a category of churches-by-nation (in which case inclusion or exclusion depends on ones view of which or both of Ireland or RoI is a nation).

I thought that in general including them both was likely to cause the last offence, so I went with that one. I'm quite happy to go with the flow if there is a consensus for a different approach ... but since this issue arises with so many categories, may I suggest that we start a separate discussion on how to handle it for all such categs? There are many senstivities here, and I think the best chance of a stable solution will be found by adopting a consistent approach of whatever shape most respects the difft political perspectives on the island. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to eliminate surplus church categories.

Delete Category:Anglican cathedrals in Ireland as the categories Category:Anglican cathedrals in Northern Ireland and Category:Anglican cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland exist. This keeps all the church related categories in the two jurisdictions in their own categories. It will then be possible to view the articles on an all island basis in the Category:Churches in Ireland whose scope is both jurisdictions, with their attendant sub-categories. This latter category would however probably only contain two child categories (one each for RoI and NI). It would just be double counting of the same things to retain the current category.

Delete Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland as the categories Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Northern Ireland and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland exist. This keeps all the church related categories in the two jurisdictions in their own categories. It will then be possible to view the articles on an all island basis in the Category:Churches in Ireland whose scope is both jurisdictions, with their attendant sub-categories. This latter category would however probably only contain two child categories (one each for RoI and NI). It would just be double counting of the same things to retain the current category.

Delete Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches as the categories Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches and Category:Church of Ireland Parishes and Churches exist. This keeps all the church related categories in the two jurisdictions in their own categories. It will then be possible to view the articles on an all island basis in the Category:Churches in Ireland whose scope is both jurisdictions, with their attendant sub-categories. This latter category would however probably only contain two child categories (one each for RoI and NI). It would just be double counting of the same things to retain the current category. Laurel Lodged

Delete Category:Cathedrals in Ireland as the categories Category:Cathedrals in Northern Ireland and Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland exist. This keeps all the church related categories in the two jurisdictions in their own categories. It will then be possible to view the articles on an all island basis in the Category:Churches in Ireland whose scope is both jurisdictions, with their attendant sub-categories. This latter category would however probably only contain two child categories (one each for RoI and NI). It would just be double counting of the same things to retain the current category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this, Laurel.

There is a consistent pattern of having Category:Foo in Ireland with subcats Category:Foo in Northern Ireland and Category:Foo in the Republic of Ireland. The all-Ireland Category:Foo in Ireland functions as a container category, and does not in any way impede the navigation you desire, because it offers two paths -- or rather it did not until you started screwing up the parenting of these categories, as noted at User_talk:Laurel_Lodged#Church_categories.

Here's how it works with RC cathedrals

Category:Cathedrals in Ireland → Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Ireland → Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland

Category:Cathedrals in Ireland → Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland → Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland

There is no double-counting involved and no duplication. We have a category structure which is consistent across a huge range of topics: it can be navigated both on a geographical basis (Northern Ireland or Republic) or on a topic basis. I have no idea why you are so keen to dismantle it, other than that you fail to understand it .... but whatever the actual reason, your misguided tinkering with categories has been disruptive for far too long. Please stop, now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way it could work. It involves the bottom category being listed twice. There is no need for a Category:Cathedrals in Ireland category once you have a Category:Churches in Ireland category. So the folowing patentage would also work. And more elegantly IMHO.

Category:Churches in Ireland → Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland → Category:Anglican cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland

Category:Churches in Ireland → Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland → Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland

But I'll leave that to the group to adjudicate. The proposal is out there and I'm happy to abide by the group's collective wisdom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove Category:Cathedrals in Ireland, then we have the same effect as removing any "Foo in Ireland" category: we break the navigational path down the "Foo in Ireland" tree (and also remove the possibility of all-Ireland categorisation of articles). The removal of any one link in the chain can be resolved by duplicate parenting, but then as each successive layer is removed the situation can be resolved only by a complicated and confusing massively-multiple parenting of the more specific layer below it.

In course of your chain, you move from a "foo in Ireland" category to a "foo in the Republic of Ireland" category. That's why there appears to be an extra step: it's because you are jumping to a more specific geographical category as well as a more specific religious one. You can only do that because a chain of similar Category:Foo in Ireland exists above it.

You offer no particular reason to remove this particular "Foo In Ireland" category rather than all of them. Why not propose the removal of all of them? Why not delete Category:Churches in Ireland, and put everything there into Category:Churches in Northern Ireland and Category:Churches in the Republic of Ireland? And when we've done that, get rid of Category:Places of worship in Ireland and put its republic and northern Ireland sub-cats into Category:Buildings and structures in Ireland and in Category:Religion in Ireland?

You've taken this one example, but the thrust of what you are trying is essentially to delete Category:Ireland and leave us with Category:Northern Ireland and Category:Republic of Ireland

If you did that there'd be no "extra steps" involved in switching from a "Foo in Ireland" category to a "foo in the The Republic of Ireland" category, because there wouldn't be any "Foo in Ireland" categories to start from. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User BHG usually berates me for moving categories. Now, for a change, it seems like I'm being berated for not moving categories. There's no pleasing some people. But Rome wasn't built in a day: there's time for other work. Meanwhile May I correct the assumption that it is my intention to delete the Category:Ireland. Far from it. I note that almost all articles in that category contain the cats "Foo in NI" and "Foo in RoI". The cat Churches in Ireland would be no different if this proposal was implemented. But instead of having confusing parallel navigation paths, the user would be forced to choose one geographic path at a high point before the full panoply of subcats was open to him, no matter which geographic path was chosen. This simplifies the navigation greatly without sacrificing any info at the lower levels, nor indeed at the highest Ireland level. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I have not "berated you for not moving categories". Try reading what you are replying to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no inherent problem with having category NI and RoI as children of an Ireland category as they both belong to the island of Ireland, which is how i see it. Yet there is a problem with what Laurel's brought to our attention. Look at Category:Cathedrals in Ireland - what category is it tagged as being part of? Yes Category:Cathedrals by country. This shouldn't be as Ireland containing both the RoI and NI is not a country - its an island. Such instances of this should be amended. If the Category:Cathedrals in Ireland was tagged as Category:Cathedrals in Europe, there wouldn't be a problem. There is also a good bit of tautology going on there. I'm going to try to amend this example. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for everyone to make clear what i changed, i amended Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland to be tagged as Category:Cathedrals by country, and removed this tag from the Category:Cathedrals in Ireland page as it can't be stated as a country when it lists two countries part of two seperate sovereign states. Category:Cathedrals in Northern Ireland is already tagged in it under Category:Cathedrals in the United Kingdom so it doesn't need a similar country tag - which helps avoid controversy there. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mabuska, I am sure you have acted in good faith, but I think that what you have done there is greatly mistaken. Your assertion "Ireland is not a country" will be highly offensive to many people, and raises many of the issues which caused such bitter controversy over the naming of the articles. The 32-county island is not currently a nation-state, but your statement that it is not a country will be vigorously rejected by many nationalists and republicans. Whether or not any of those in discussion share either of those viewpoints, I think it is quite wrong to structure the category system to exclude that viewpoint.

I do not think that you should have made this change unilaterally, when you yourself have only just opened a much-need discussion on the subject in the section above this.

It is much better to discuss things in one place, so we should avoid discussing this here while the discussion above is underway. Please revert your edits to Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland pending a wider consensus on how to handle this for all such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns BHG, however for the reason i gave above its incorrect. The category as it was, was incorrect due to its content. The Category:Cathedrals in Ireland contained two children categories; Category:Cathedrals in Northern Ireland and Category:Cathedrals in the Republic of Ireland. In this style, the Ireland one is not being used as a country but as a geographical entity so it shouldn't be listed under the list of countries category. In this sense Ireland as a geographical entity is not a country. The way it was gives a false impression that NI and RoI are part of a country called Ireland.

If i am to revert it i will have to remove the NI category from it and merge the content of the RoI category with the Ireland one. As i said, i only removed the "Ireland" category from the "countries" one and added the "Republic" category to it to avoid giving that impression.

Ireland is a country i don't deny that so i don't mean to offend anybody but in the way it was being used it refers to the island and the island of Ireland is not a country.

This really is a troublesome matter lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it is a troublesome matter! That's why I am concerned that we proceed carefully, taking care to accommodate all the difft perspectives.

It's all very well to say that the all-Ireland category was not being used as a country, but that depends entirely on how we define a country ... and that question goes to the core of a long-standing disagreement. As above, you made the changes to this particular category while we were still discussing the wider principle above.

Please, whatever you think is the right outcome: please please please please revert your changes for now, and let's centralise in one place the discussion about how to handle this issue generally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though the reasons i've stated for the two changes i believe are correct and justifiable. It still leaves a problem of having an Ireland category stated as a country that includes the RoI and NI as sub-cats. We could state in the main Ireland category page that it refers to the island which was once a country and that it has since been partitioned into two - this would allow for the sub-cats to remain. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting ... but please please please please please please please please please can we keep the substantive discussion in one place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the churches are organised on an all-Ireland basis, I can see no reason for keeping the RoI and NI sub-cats. A single Ireland category is the way to go. Fmph (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to conclude my involvement in this branch off, i have to say Fmph that that isn't a justifiable reason to remove the RoI and NI sub-categories completely. RoI and NI are or belong to different states, it is helpful for readers to be able to see automatically what cathedrals exist in NI and what ones exist in the RoI rather than just see the entire island and no sub-cats. The only problem with these ones brought to my attention by Laurel is the fact the main Ireland cat is being used as an island but treated as a country. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Can you justify your assertion that readers find it helpful to be able to see automatically which cathedrals exist in NI and which in RoI? What are the hit stats for those 3 cat pages? If what you say is true, I would expect there to be a greatly significant difference between each of the pages. Personally I doubt very much that WP readers in general are clamouring for the Irish cathedrals to be sub-catted like that. But you may have a different opinion. And how is the main Ireland cat being treated as a country? Surely that is easily solved by editing the cat page to show that it's not. More than one way to skin a cat. Fmph (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many people even bother looking at the categories of most things anyways. I did edit the main Ireland page however i was asked to revert it as some people will find it troublesome so it'd be better to discuss it first rather than being just bold. Also can you justify deleting the NI sub-cat altogether when its also a sub-cat of Category:Cathedrals in the United Kingdom, and as Scotland, Wales, and England each have there own, Northern Ireland as the other part of the UK is fully justified in having its own. Readers may go to the main Ireland cat to find cathedrals for Ireland however if they are looking at UK cathedrals and want to see what ones are in NI a part of the UK then the sub-cat must exist. Removing it altogether in place of an all-Ireland one would be very problematic and troublesome - could you imagine the uproar if Category:Cathedrals in Ireland was tagged as being in Category:Cathedrals in the United Kingdom. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we follow Category:Mosques in Ireland?.Red Hurley (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After all of the above, it is clear that that isn't the best idea. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland

Category:Members of the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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) 22:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Moore's almanac

Old Moore's Almanac expanded with some 2011 predictions.Red Hurley (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Irish monarchs

Forgot to notify the Project that I had submitted a proposal regarding Lists of Irish monarchs to CFD here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish Government

This is to notify the Project that I have submitted a proposal regarding Category:Irish Government to CFD here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing creating another category called Category:Executive Government of the Republic of Ireland, while we already have Category:Irish Government, Category:Government of the Republic of Ireland and Category:Government of Ireland. The whole area need a good re-org/cleanup. Snappy (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I have not proposed the creation of a category. My proposal concerns the re-naming of an existing category with a very confusing name. But I agree that all the cats you mention need a good re-org. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended that you withdraw your proposal until a full debate has taken place here. Snappy (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a general re-examination of these categories is needed, and that the CFD nom should be withdrawn pending a wider discussion.

However, in the last few days, Laurel Lodged has done a lot of recategorisation in this area, including depopulating at least one category out-of-process. LL even removed both Tánaiste and Taoiseach from Category:Irish Government (edits [1] and [2]). In view of the long history of this sort of disruption, I have asked LL to immediately stop all recategorising.

LL's first response was to refuse ... so while that is being addressed, please beware that the current state of these categories reflects both some long-standing issues and some recent disruption which has not yet been fully reverted, and wghich there amy be more of. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that user:Laurel Lodged could not work with other editors in achieving consensus but seems to seek out conflict. Posting a notice here regarding the current confusing Irish government categories would have been a logical first step. Unfortunately, a typically combative approach has been taken by this user, how disappointing. I hope all editors concerned can discuss their views here in order to achieve a common approach to this issue. Snappy (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Snappy's tut-tutting would be easier to swallow if it wasn't for the fact that he is aware that his mentor BHG is guilty of precisely the same offence. If by-passing this Project and proceeding directly to CFD is the great sin, then it was BHG who started the trend. To deplore my actions while willfuly ignoring her actions is just rank hypocracy. To refresh your memory goto of December 8th. I complained that "Regarding the prefix / suffix debate. These arguments have been well rehersed on Project Ireland. I'm pleased with the progress that has been made and that will continue to be made. Clearly the emerging concensus may not be to the liking of all, but that's democracy for you. Certainly, in the interests of peace, I've been more than accommodating to the various sections and have consented to a prefix solution for the traditional counties and a suffix solution for the modern administrative counties. If you have an issue with that, the Project page is the place to raise it. You made no contributions there, proceeding to this place instead, directly". In reply, BHG stated "I proceeded here because it was quite clear that there was no consensus at WT:IE for your unilaterally-imposed suffixes on the category names, and there were clear objections from others. Since the discussion had dragged on for months without resolution, I brought the categories here to seek a wider consensus .. and just as at WT:IE, you are in a minority of one in championing the neologisms." O tempora! O mores! Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that BHG is not my mentor, I've been on wikipedia about a year longer than her, and while we agree on some issues, we have very heated discussions in the past, all of which were resolving civilly. Might be a lesson in that for you. P.S. You have my full permission to copy and re-use my posts in any manner you see fit! Snappy (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland

Category:Parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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) 04:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What shall we call Portlaoise/Port Laoise?

The Portlaoise or Port Laoise article has been renamed back and forth by moving its contents on five occasions because editors dispute the name of the town. The last move-rename was by me to recover the article edit history that was lost when User:193.130.120.206 performed a botched cut-and-paste move on 11 January 2011. I have consulted official sources in trying to obtain the official name of the town, but Irish national and County Laois officialdom use both names for the town, in English. I have described my research on the article talk page. Another discussion of the name occurred in 2007. When Irish authorities are inconsistent, how can Wikipedia editors settle on an agreed and fixed title for the article, so we can point to it when any dispute about the name arises in future? — O'Dea 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies between Irish road article titles and their categories

Inconsistencies exist between titles of articles about Irish roads, and their corresponding categories. I propose a rename of the three categories, as shown in the following table, to align them with the article titles.

**Article and category titles, and proposed renames**
Article title	Existing category title	Proposed new category title
National primary road	Category:National Primary Road	Category:National primary road
National secondary road	Category:Secondary roads in the Republic of Ireland	Category:National secondary road
Regional road	Category:Regional Road	Category:Regional road

I have posted these three categories to the Categories for discussion page, if you would like to comment. — O'Dea 18:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that user:O'Dea could not work with other editors in achieving consensus but seems to seek out conflict. Posting a notice here regarding the current confusing Irish road categories would have been a logical first step. Unfortunately, a typically combative approach has been taken by this user, how disappointing. I hope all editors concerned can discuss their views here in order to achieve a common approach to this issue. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted those remarks above in good faith, addressing the concerns that I has about your behaviour. I am not the only editor to have concerns regarding your approach to editing on wikipedia. By posting these remarks, I assume as a joke, you have shown yourself to be acting like a petulant little child. Disappointing indeed. Snappy (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel, I see no evidence whatsoever that O'Dea is trying to "seek out conflict". O'Dea nominated the categories at Categories for discussion, as any editor is entitled to do, and although there is no obligation to notify a wikiproject, O'Dea courteously did so. Your attack is unfounded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, that comment by user:Laurel Lodged, is a copy of my remarks in the Irish Government section above. Perhaps its an attempt at humour. Snappy (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had spotted that it was a copy, but at this point I don't find Laurel Lodged funny any more. Even if LL thinks that being an echo chamber is funny, it was quite inappropriate to take a swipe at O'Dea, whose conduct has been wholly collaborative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed in amazement at the bizarre accusation that I am seeking out conflict. Anyone (reasonable) reading my proposal can see that its purpose is to seek consensus. Note my final words, above, Mr. Lodged: "I have posted these three categories to the Categories for discussion page, if you would like to comment." That is open and "collaborative", to use BrownHairedGirl's word. I am mystified that anyone could infer from a patently consensus-seeking action that I am, in fact, seeking conflict—and I reject the accusation in a state of bewilderment. Perhaps after considering the facts more carefully, Mr. Lodged would like to apologise, in the Wikipedian spirit of assuming good faith, and avoiding conflict. — O'Dea 17:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think an apology from User:Laurel Lodged to Odea is in order. Snappy (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged, what do you mean by my "typically combative approach" and can you cite evidence of such typicality from Wikipedia discussion histories? I notice, too, that your actual response to my proposal (which you describe as "almost right") on the categories for discussion page was less hostile. I don't understand you. — O'Dea 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

County templates and townlands..... needed?

I'm wondering whether we should be including townlands along with the villages in the NI county templates, for example:

I think we should be keeping the townlands seperate from the villages. There is to me little point in adding in a few townlands and ignoring the names of the rest, and having them mixed amongst the complete list (or possibly complete) of villages. Adding all townlands, red-linked or not, to create a complete list would however be rediculous as there are so many townlands.

So should we add a new section to the template specifically for townlands, specifically for those that actually have an article. Or should we remove them altogether? Though that would deprive them of a way of being found.

A possibile solution could be, due to the possible lack of notability for most townland articles (of which i've created many, and no doubt lack notability), we could instead create and add civil parish articles to the county templates. Each civil parish article can list its constituent townlands and we can add details of those townlands that we have details for rather than having seperate articles for them??

Thoughts? Ideas?

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should start tagging the non-notable townland articles for deletion. The problem is finding which townlands have settlements within them. Most townlands would have people living in them, but only some are classed as hamlets/villages. There should be some sort of cut-off point. ~Asarlaí 17:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposer that removing townlands altogether would be incorrect because the templates are called "Places in..." and townlands are certainly places in, so they belong within the templates.

I am not convinced of the necessity of separating villages from townlands because in so many cases, they are the same. A great many townlands are named after villages, or vice versa, and continue to share the same name. I have sometimes modified town or village articles by adding "and townland" in the lead sentence, as follows: "Ardkillderrycarrigballynahown is a village and townland in Countyname, Ireland."

I foresee no attempt being made to create articles for every townland, of which there are so many, but if that ever happened, it could be useful to look at the question again. The county templates are presently in no danger of being overwhelmed. If someone wants to write articles about obsolete civil parishes, good luck to them, but I would hate to be faced with the practical difficulties of researching enough material about the parishes to create such unnecessary articles, distinct from the villages and townlands.

While a separate berth could be created within county templates for townlands only, it would increase the height of the templates, and I can't see how it would help anyone, really. Are readers being badly confused by the existing arrangement? I can't imagine so, particularly when the articles in question begin, "Ardkillderrycarrigballynahown is a village [or townland, or village and townland]", so everything is clear. Villages and townlands are, together, tertiary settlement structures and I can see why they sit easily together within the templates. I am quite comfortable with the existing arrangements because they work. — O'Dea 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the naming of places after townlands and that several settlement articles have the "and townland" including in the introduction. Though there are townlands in the lists that aren't a village or settlement. Knockmore being an example, though unlike some of the ones i've come across it has notability. So should we just have notable townlands listed in the template?

The suggestion of adding civil parishes (as there are far fewer of them than townlands), is so that we can list all the townlands in those articles, whilst including the structure between the barony and townland which is the civil parish. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"So should we just have notable townlands listed in the template?" - In my mind, there shouldn't be articles about non-notable townlands to begin with. I understand what you're proposing with the parishes, but I agree with O'Dea on this one. ~Asarlaí 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there are, already, lists of townlands for each county showing which baronies, civil parishes, and poor law unions they belong to: I created most of them, County Carlow, for example, and those lists giving civil parish data are readily accessible within most, if not all, county templates. — O'Dea 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Points taken. That is a really good format and style for townland list articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mabuska, you began this by saying, "I'm wondering whether we should be including townlands along with the villages" and said "we should be keeping the townlands seperate from the villages". You continued, "a possibile solution could be" to "create and add civil parish articles to the county templates". But after all that, I don't actually know what problem you identified. That is, I don't know why you think there is a problem with villages and townlands being together in the templates. As I said already, the templates are not in danger of being overwhelmed because the number of towns and villages is not very great. I think the templates are in excellent shape, barring a few older ones which use inappropriate language about unincorporated towns, an American usage that does not apply in Ireland. I can only find one example right now. — O'Dea 23:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I did say "points taken" which is meant to be me accepting your points and agreeing in the end to leave them as they are :-) Though the problem i was trying to identify was is there a need to have villages and townlands grouped together. Though on your point of villages and townlands sharing the same name, what about the towns that do also? On that basis Cookstown should be also added to the villages and townlands section even though it is a town and in the town section but it is also a townland. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to see why the question had been raised; I wasn't having a go at you; I hope you didn't feel that—just puzzled. Towns are easily distinguished as a separate category of entity by their large and concentrated populations and range of activities. — O'Dea 16:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I did feel like you were and now i don't :-) Cookstown despite its town status is still the name of a townland, which it is stated as being in the Cookstown article. If we are to include townlands alongside villages then we could alter towns to "Towns and townlands" to properly include them there also. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish names for people who did not use them (Re-visited)

Due to recent editing, I have started a new debate on Irish language names for people who did not use them at WP:IMOS. The discussion can be found here.

@@ Line 601: / Line 601: @@
 ::::::::::I did feel like you were and now i don't :-) Cookstown despite its town status is still the name of a townland, which it is stated as being in the Cookstown article. If we are to include townlands alongside villages then we could alter towns to "Towns and townlands" to properly include them there also. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mabuska|(talk)]]</sup> 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
+== Irish names for people who did not use them (Re-visited) ==
+Due to recent editing, I have started a new debate on Irish language names for people who did not use them at WP:IMOS. The discussion can be found [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)#Irish names for people who did not use them (Re-visited)|here]].

v t e Places in County Fermanagh
List of places in County Fermanagh
Towns	Enniskillen
Villages and townlands	Aghadrumsee Aghakeeran Aghanaglack Arney Ballinamallard Ballycassidy Belcoo Bellanaleck Belleek Blaney Boho Brookeborough Carn Carr Castle Balfour Demesne Castle Coole Clabby Clogherbog Cooltrain Currin Derrygonnelly Derrylin Derryvore Donagh Drumbegger Drumcreen Drumlaghy Drummurry Drumskinny Drumsloe Ederney Florencecourt Garrison Glenkeel Holywell Irvinestown Kesh Killadeas Kilnamadoo Killydrum Kinawly Knockmore Knocknahunshin Knocks Lack Laragh Letterbreen Levally Lower Lisbellaw Lisnarick Lisnaskea Macken Magheracross Magheraveely Maguiresbridge Monea Moylehid Newtownbutler Pettigo Reyfad Rosslea Salloon Skea Sidaire Springfield Tamlaght Tattykeeran Teemore Tempo Trory Tullyhommon Tullygerravra
Landforms	Badger Pot Boa Island Belmore Benaughlin Caves of Tullybrack and Belmore hills Cliffs of Magho Cuilcagh Devinish Hanging Rock Knockmore Lough Erne Lough MacNean Lough Melvin Lusty Beg Island Lustymore Island Marble Arch Caves Slieve Beagh Slieve Rushen White Island
Baronies	Clanawley Clankelly Coole Knockninny Lurg Magheraboy Magherastephana Tirkennedy
WikiProject Northern Ireland WikiProject Ireland Northern Ireland Portal United Kingdom Portal Ireland Portal