Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Grasping the nettle is within our power, if we have the will

I cannot believe the bad-faith bitterness this whole project engenders. Over and over again we have to explain that at least some people find Republic of Ireland to be problematic. Over and over again we make a tiny bit of progress, getting some agreement from some people that even if they don"t understand the problem some people have with the status quo, they recognize that some change might make this a better environment to work in. Consensus of people of good faith seems to be that Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland being a disambiguation page would be a way of of this endless strife.

And then what do we get? We get thrown "majority rules" even though Wikipedia is not a democracy and are thrown dismissive numbers. "You lose, 25 to 10, status quo wins."

No wonder editors like me have steered clear of editing articles within WikiProject Ireland entirely for the past two years. Even keeping a page on one's watchlist invites updates where someone or other is changing an "Ireland" to a "Republic of Ireland", or changing it back. It is ceaselessly outrageous.

Any rational person can see that the problem we have is emotive and social. The problem is not the name of the article. The problem is the fact that we have a totally adversarial working environment. Only one thing will fix it: change of article names to something that doesn't kick anybody in the groin over and over again.

If the article on the state were at Ireland (state) would anyone be wasting his breath agitating to have it changed to Republic of Ireland? Hardly. Would a significant minority of people go on agitating for years to make that change?

The Ireland articles on the Wikipedia have been bedevilled by this argument since at least 2002. We're going on a decade of this crap.

Instead of all this, we could have a working environment where people could just get on with improving the articles. That would be collaboration. We've got no collaboration now. Just brinksmanship. I can hardly believe I'm even back here trying to make sense here again, because it's just all the same arguments over and over again.

And those arguments are all about the wrong thing.

The problem is not the truth-value of the article names. The problem is that the status quo of the article names causes bad feelings and ill-will among many, even if not most or all, editors—and this keeps talented editors from even bothering with articles on Irish topics.

And makes every one of us look like an idiot in the wider community of Wikipedians. And yet, there is a solution easy and within our grasp. I am tempted to invest some time in it. But it is going to take some bravery on the part of the fence-sitters. -- Evertype·✆ 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Well put. RashersTierney (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for saying so. -- Evertype·✆ 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm both content with where the articles are & with moving them to Ireland (state), Ireland (island) & Irland for the disambiguation article. This is obvious in my participation in the polls. GoodDay (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not going to go check the 2009 poll results. I appreciate what you say. -- Evertype·✆ 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And to put those objections of Evertype's in a policy context, they Republic of Ireland title may fail both/either of WP:NPOVTITLE and/or WP:NDESC. Thats the argument. Fmph (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but again, it is not the perfect truth-value of the article title names which is the problem. The problem is emotive and social; that problem interferes with genuine collaboration, persistently. -- Evertype·✆ 13:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Having the page about Ireland as a whole at "Ireland (island)" would certainly cause bad feeling and ill will, and I think there would be a much stronger case for that failing WP:NPOVTITLE than for "Republic of Ireland" failing it. Having Irland as a disambiguation page would almost certainly also cause bad feeling and ill will. Finally, there's a Wikipedia policy about assuming good faith. I find it quite unpleasant to see that some people are instead assuming that only they themselves are acting in good faith. If people you disagree with don't question your good faith, you could perhaps return the courtesy - but no wonder the argument has been so long and bitter, if some of those involved can't even conceive that anyone could honestly disagree with them. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I used the word "bad faith" quite generally and find that it might apply to people on every side of every argument, but as this is clearly a red flag to a bull, I have modified my statement above: I cannot believe the bitterness this whole project engenders. Now, following on from that, I notice that you seem to have a crystal ball to determine what would "almost certainly" cause bad feeling and ill will. I happen to disagree with you. But it is certain that the status quo does; it is certain that the status quo engenders little but bitter argument. -- Evertype·✆ 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So, why would Ireland (island) fail WP:NPOVTITLE? Fmph (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Evertype but I do not like being accused of bad faith. I believe you are even more wrong about this matter that what you oppose and I see no benefit in naming the article so it always needs to be piped and people are always sticking in something like Free State or Southern Ireland or the country of Ireland or the Irish State or the state of Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am "even more wrong about this matter than what" I oppose? What does that mean? My thesis is that the problem we have is sociological, and that this argument prevents us all from collaborating as a team. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we just agree to disagree for the moment and then the whole business can be brought up again when the arguments have been honed better or changed? There is no earthly purpose in putting around accusations of bad faith at this point. The only thing that will happen is that there will be another ArbCom ruling to keep with the latest decision for another two years. Is that what editors who wish to change the status quo really wish to do? Can we have an end to all this for the moment please? Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No. We can't. The arguments will never be honed better or changed. That's the point. The arguments about the status quo have been going on for nearly a decade. It's time to think outside the box. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Or we could take up Dick-Dock's suggestion of a temporary move to Ireland (state). As I said above, I am not sure that it is a perfectly designed experiment, but it could give us an idea of whether that title would fly (or would fly more gracefully than the current one). Does anyone really have anything to lose by that? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no difference between a "temporary move" and a "move".

I am in Minneapolis working today, and it is just morning; I will return to this discussion when I can. -- Evertype·✆ 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no good reason to go around making a mess of Wikipedia for silly experiments. There is a perfectly straightforward way of deciding disputes and it doesn't involve power-sharing over articles or anything like that. If somebody wants to set up an encyclopaedia where the articles change name in proportion to votes or whatever at 2 o'clock or whatever time or some random time round the world and change all the links to the page every second Saturday then they are fully entitled to set up their own project. However this is Wikipedia and consensus is the way decisions are made. Going on and on with unconstructive ideas is disruptive. There is no way this is going to happen and therefore talk about it is not reasonable content for this talk page as per WP:TALK. As its nutshell says 'Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. They are also most certainly not just a random discussion forum, for discussing the subject in question.' Will discussion about swapping names around when it isn't going to happen help improve the articles in the encyclopaedia? I don't see that it would. Does going on about the decisions help or is it liable to sway minds at this point? I feel this whole business should just be wrapped up like the silly "Ireland is, Ireland was." stuff before it. It can be revisited again later but the longer this discussion is then the longer in proportion should be the time before the whole business is brought up again. All this waste of time = does is harden attitudes. Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no real consensus here. There is one solution, the current one, that going on the vote that took place in 2009 is supported by the greatest number of people and objected to by the least number of people, but it's certainly not won consensus (even in the distorted Wikipedia idea of what constitutes consensus). ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We just had an RFC and the current position was preferred by a very clear majority. 2009 has nothing to do with it. Consensus does not have to be total. What happens at Stormont is consensus politics. Your consensus is that you are willing to abide by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. If you are not willing to abide by them then you shouldn't be editing here. Dmcq (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

An RFC within this project cannot yield meaningful results. We need to ask the whole community for help, as we have clearly unable to settle matters ourselves. -- Evertype·✆ 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a question for Evertype. You say, "Consensus of people of good faith seems to be that Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) with Ireland being a disambiguation page would be a way of of this endless strife." Can you show me diffs to that consensus? In all the hundreds of kilobytes of discussion since 18 September I haven't seen that particular proposal even mentioned, never mind getting a consensus. In fact the last time I saw any reference to it was in September 2009 when you yourself were pushing it as the only allowable solution. There may have been one or two proposals this time around that people might have budged on - Ireland (state) on its own, for instance, or merging the two Ireland articles - but you don't seem to have noticed those. A further question while I'm at it: how do you determine who "people of good faith" are? I presume I'm not one since I don't agree with you and I never have. Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTCa)

We have endless strife because "consensus" in the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is not inclusive and the status quo allows only for (what some say is a large group of) winners and (what some say is a small group of) losers. This is no consensus at all, and isn't even in the spirit of the word "collaboration". We have to do better. -- Evertype·✆ 16:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it was mentioned it again a few weeks ago and there's a reference to Citizendum doing it but yes I think logic implies there must be very very few people of good faith if that was a consensus of them! Dmcq (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not my point, Dcmq. Merging was something that, as you say, was mentioned in this discussion and that certain people - whether you think they are of good faith or not - might have budged on, whereas Evertype's famous "compromise" has not been mentioned and we all know that nobody will ever budge on it. If somebody is going to talk about "grasping the nettle" and "having the will", he ought at least to be honest. Scolaire (talk) 08:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

So what state does "Ireland (state)" refer to... The Irish Free State? the Irish Republic?, the Republic of Ireland, or the pre-Act of Union 1801 Ireland, or maybe even the Lordship of Ireland? All can be classified as states so its far too vague a title. Republic of Ireland works well enough and is the official state description for the state. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For which state? Do you mean Ireland? Fmph (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Starting to confuse you with GoodDay. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Have to say, I've been steering well clear of these topics recently for pretty much exactly the reasons you've outlined above. Well said. That posting should be preserved. --HighKing (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Worst of best worlds?

Ireland (Republic of Ireland)?

I'm not actually advocating this, but it caught by eye as an undiscussed approach. --RA (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nay, it should be Ireland or Republic of Ireland. Wowsers, there's been way too many sections opened on this topic in the last few weeks. I can't keep up anymore, as it's become confusing. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to the nettle

Nice to be yelled at for having said "bad faith" even after I changed it to "bitterness". Nice too to be called dishonest. What I notice, though, is that the people who talked about those things didn't address the point. The point is not the truth-value of the article titles. The truth is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state interferes with WikiProject Ireland from successfully growing and expanding and improving articles because energy is perpetually attracted to the problem of a number of editors being deeply dissatisfied with the article titles as they are.

I put it to you, that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is simply unable to come to consensus, and that we need, again, to poll the wider community of the English Wikipedia, as this is a matter which affects everyone, not just people in Britain and Ireland who wish to be involved with articles about Ireland. -- Evertype·✆ 15:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you look above you'll see that last RfC kept being extended to wider and wider communities, people started complaining about that, and it made no difference. If anything it increased the support for the status quo. As to your other point I see nothing in WP:5P about changing the contents of Wikipedia to give a warm fuzzy feel to the contributors. As to the bad-feeling etc, so you make a mistake, okay then just take it on the chin. Apologize perhaps but don't complain about how other people react, that just prolongs it. Dmcq (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've no probs with polling the wider community. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Evertype, there have been several polls recently, and - not that you'll like hearing me say it - the consensus is to retain the status quo. "The truth is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state interferes with WikiProject Ireland from successfully growing and expanding and improving articles because energy is perpetually attracted to the problem of a number of editors being deeply dissatisfied with the article titles as they are." Yes, agreed. I hope you would also concede that the vocal opposition to the RoI title comes from a relatively small minority of editors (not all of whom contribute to Irish articles in any case), and that they may just have to accept (based on the 2009 vote and the polls above) that "Republic of Ireland" is by far the preferred title among the vast majority, and put up with it.

I will therefore propose the following:

1. Give us a rest. No new poll until xmas shenanigans are well and truly over. Say, second week in January.
2. Use the time to come up with a limited number of new poll options.
3. One of those options must be "Keep the status quo."
4. No other option should appear in the poll unless it can attract significant support (I'm completely open as to what that support threshold should be). This will allow us to kill off problematic/no-hoper proposals such as "Move 'Republic of Ireland' to 'Ireland (country)'".
5. When options, if any, have been chosen, and a method of counting the votes has been agreed (PR-STV, IRV, Concordet, first-past-the-post, whatever):
   1. Arbcom sanction is sought to hold it and make the result binding;
   2. Arbcom are requested to appoint administrator/overseers/moderators for it;
   3. Anyone that wishes to may contribute a statement, same as in 2009, and the index of statements will be linked prominently from the poll page.
6. The poll gets advertised as widely as possible (if I have to put up with hearing about a women-only wikimeet in Scunthorpe, or see a picture of Jimmy Wales seeking donations every time I check my watchlist, they can put up with hearing about the new poll).
7. The poll result is binding for a period of at least four years. (And yes, eight years for the poll after that...)

Thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and #8 - GoodDay may not particpate on any poll discussions with any contribution shorter than five lines on a monitor using a resolution of 1920x1080... ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it acceptable. Who wants to wager on the four year stay of execution? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Is Evertype willing to concede that a simple move of ROI to Ireland (state) is more likely to get agreement over time than any other move proposal to date, new or old? If so (and assuming nobody else in the move lobby disagrees), we can avoid another divisive and bitter multi-option poll, move on to a discussion of what he correctly identifies as the key problem - the dissatisfaction of some editors with the article title - and develop a collaborative approach which takes all the stats, ghits, statutes etc. as read and avoids drama, snide comments and accusations of any sort. Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That probably has the best hope but it almost certainly would still fail at the moment. You really need to wait a while. I really do wish the page move people the best chance for their attempt rather than wanting to destroy their chances just because they can't get the strategy right. I'm getting more and more the feeling though this is like telling somebody not to scratch their measles or they'll get marks. Dmcq (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I support Bastun's proposal, although I have no problem with having as many different options on the ballot paper as possible. I personally think trying to restrict the possibilities will lead to endless debate and disruption as to what is acceptable and what is not. Put them all on there and let the editors choose. This idea that some sort of star chamber of WP:IECOLL regulars can choose the options that the whole community will vote for is just nonsense. What about filtering out the 3 options with the lowest number of first preferences last time? I'd go with that. Fmph (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem though is that some of those had very few first preferences but a huge number of second preferences. STV/AV is a system where your second preference is meaningless until your first has been eliminated and thus not very good if the aim is acceptability rather than popularity. Borda is probably the best system that allows later preferences to be considered but is also easy to explain. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Fmph - I'm suggesting restricting the options to (probably) one to three plus the status quo to minimise or eliminate the "Dammit, you pesky kids fooled us again! Our vote got split because we had too many options!" reaction that was present last time and may resurface again should the status quo win again. This, admittedly, buys in to the fallacy that there are/were only two camps, and you were either a committed status quo-er or anything but the status quo-er - which isn't reflected in the poll results. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think that an 'every-option-plus-the-kitchen-sink' approach is better than a resticted choice. I understand where you're coming from but I think your are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Fmph (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that the topic is being taken more seriously. I am dismayed a bit by the use of the word "concede" by Scoláire, but perhaps he didn't mean it to chafe. I am still travelling and will not be home till 15 November. I agree to beginning a new poll in January. I would not like to see an endless weeks-long hand-wringing about the options and about wordsmithing the options on a new Wiki-wide poll. I agree there ought to be fewer options in the poll. I think that the island and the state and the disambiguation titles (all three) should be listed even if in some options all three are changed from status quo the present configuration and in others only one or two are. I'd like to suggest that we all think privately about the options we consider sensible for for a time rather than laying them out here (if for no reason but that I would like to work constructively and won't be able to follow the topic very effectively till 15 November). I volunteer to work with RA as editor of the poll document, which work he and I did effectively previously. Is this acceptable? -- Evertype·✆ 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What will you do if the result is not what you want? Dmcq (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That kind of question is exactly the kind of thing that is an example of the malaise that bedevils the WikiProject Ireland and the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. -- Evertype·✆ 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The word "concede" was not meant to provoke. I personally think that another poll, now or in two months time, would be pointless and would only rachet up the tension again. I think, as I have thought since August, that the only way to make progress on the basis of respect for each other's opinion is to identify one single option that people on both sides are most likely to be able to live with, and then discuss - in a genuinely conciliatory atmosphere - whether an end to this perennial row is worth the cost of giving up what we've clung to for all these years. But to do that you - and Fmph - would need to...accept...that even raising the other options is going to entrench people on the other side. I thought long and hard and decided that the best word to express that was "concede". I repeat that this is only my opinion, and I'm not trying to dictate to anybody. Scolaire (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you really ask "whether an end to this perennial row is worth the cost of giving up what we've clung to for all these years"? It is the clinging that has kept this row going on for a decade. Is it not? -- Evertype·✆ 22:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Only on one side? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This question the Dodo could not answer without a great deal of thought, and it stood for a long time with one finger pressed upon its forehead (the position in which you usually see Shakespeare, in the pictures of him), while the rest waited in silence. At last the Dodo said, “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” -- Evertype·✆ 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC) (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Oppose any new poll, we have just had one, it was clear 2.4:1 for keeping the status quo, this new poll is a waste of time, lets leave it for six months and review it then. Mtking ^(edits) 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is my view that a poll within this project will achieve little. However, I expect we may also leave a link for members of the Project who wish to record their opposition to a poll altogether. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Shame on you. (Sorry I shouldn't have started on a bad note like that). We're going to have a genuinely conciliatory discussion and come to a consensus decision and nobody will need to concede anything and we need not contemplate not having our requirements satisfied. That sounds like a good recipe for a fruitful discussion. Horray for rationality! I feel I should provide some cakes and tea. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is my final statement. After having spent several weeks stating a good case for continued discussion and final movement of the title "Republic of Ireland", I have no recourse but to respond to this diff, a table pounding lies-and-misrepresentations-filled rant that typifies the current membership here. "By far the preferred title among the vast majority"? Bastun, are you hiring BritishWatcher as a ghost writer? Thirty-four total voters in a semi-obscure follow-on poll, with practically no participation from many who actually oppose your stance but don't want to take your abuse? People who like me have no reason to want to continue to have good work and rational discussion met with vitriol and dismissal? What an utter joke.

My recommendation is that this project be abolished. It is a safe haven of "status quo" opinion inhabited by the "victors" of the 2009 poll and its continued presence has absolutely destroyed the reputation of fairness that I once assumed Wikipedia deserved. That is not because Bastun, RA, Scolaire and newer "participants" continue to hang out here and hold court here; it's how they got to this point and the "power" they claim. The problem is, Wikipedia in its official capacity, exemplified by policy makers and the arbitration committee, have sanctioned this idiocy as the only place to discuss the unsound, myopic and biased article structure and titling that was adopted in 2002. As of this writing they, and by extension en.wikipedia.org's oligarchical management, continue to funnel all reasonable objections into this forum, in essence sending differing opinions straight off to slaughter. This forum is not neutral. The only way for fairness to prevail at this point would be to abolish this "WikiProject Ireland Collaboration" (actual title) project and seek an impartial panel of a few highly respected editors to set up a mechanism that fairly reviews and rates previous discussions and works toward final restructuring of the Ireland articles. Any continued discussion at this forum, peopled with the current biased and intransigent membership, is nothing short of mental masturbation. Sswonk (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk, if you have read what I have written, you will see that I am simply not taking to heart the POV statements of, for instance, BritishWatcher, who tried to belittle "the small minority" as though his "winning" made the WikiProject Ireland in any way a pleasant place where people who love our island and live there can help to educate the world about it. BritishWatcher's remark (above) deserved a chiding, because it was not collaborative, and that's what I gave him. Do not yet give up. -- Evertype·✆ 04:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

An emotional outburst isn't gonna do much in the way of building a consensus for your argument. You can't force editors to agree with you. I've tried that before in other areas of Wikipedia & it doesn't work that way. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of the deeply held feelings of frustration which has inspired Sswonk to "an emotional outburst" would go a long way to improving things, GoodDay. As I said above, and will say again, it is the emotive and social dysfunctionality of WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Ireland Collaboration which drives editors away from Ireland articles, and which makes us all look like idiots. -- Evertype·✆ 04:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not possible when so many of the most active participants have their ears plugged. I'm done, GoodDay. This is rubbish. My recommendations are sincere and not simple emotional outbursts. This forum should be done away with and an impartial panel should be created, nothing other than that will end the unsound practices currently favored by mob rule. Sswonk (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk, that is why a community-wide poll is being considered. In large part what you have written over the last while has inspired me to make another attempt at making WIkiProject Ireland a good place to work, in friendship and fellowship. But we must grasp the nettle and settle on a naming scheme for three articles that does not simply attract aggression and argument. -- Evertype·✆ 04:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

So take the situation out of the hands of the community in which everyone can contribute, and hand it to a small group of elites? That is in no way fair or a good way of resolving this matter, because if the outcome is decided by several people instead of a clear majority, you can be very sure there will be far more anger and hostility at the result. Some form of panel should only be needed if the result and arguments were close and therefore a judgement had to be made. That is not the situation here. And as for this page, its meant to handle other matters too, not just the article titles, sadly that will always just consume the debate until people accept the outcome or the pages are locked again. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I reject your prophecy. It is possible for us to behave like grown-ups and to choose something that will not draw unto itself endless debate. And you can choose to help do that, or remain stuck in posturing and lawyering and doom-saying about how impossible it is. If you really think there is no possibility of collaboration, what on earth are you doing here? -- Evertype·✆ 04:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a new full poll. We got a very clear result two years ago from a community wide poll, it has been stable during the two year period of the page move ban. That ban came to an end, people were asked if they wanted to go to arbcom for an extension, that vote failed with many saying it needs to be discussed again. There was then a second poll, which showed very clear support for the status quo along with massive debate below regarding these matters. There is no justification for another "wikipedia wide" poll, just because a minority oppose something still. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Your minority report has been recorded. You do not, however, have a veto. -- Evertype·✆ 04:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The second community-wide poll will, as I have said, include a facility for people to record their objection to their being a poll at all. I can't do anything more than that. This WikiProject has, as Sswonk has said, failed to achieve collaboration, and the bitterness just gets worse and worse. I am going to try to ask the wider community to help us, as we have been unable to help ourselves. I will be happy to accept private e-mail from people who would like to outline what they want to see happen in confidence rather than here out in the open. I would like to hear what people really think they could support. -- Evertype·✆ 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't want a new poll so soon after the last one. Lets just see how small this opposition to a new poll so soon after the last one is. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been no community-wide poll since 2009.

Sswonk, in composing your "final statement" rant above (which proved, unsurprisingly, not be all that final) in which you accuse me of ranting, you seem to have (deliberately?) misread what I actually wrote. '"By far the preferred title among the vast majority"?...Thirty-four total voters in a semi-obscure follow-on poll' This was a 2.4-1 "semi-obscure follow-on poll" which was advertised widely and took place in the only venue such discussions can take place, which will presumably be on the watchlist of the huge numbers you obviously feel are opposed to the current titles, whether that be nationalistic reasons or reasons of "incorrectness". But you seem to have missed "based on the 2009 vote". Using HighKing's tally:

• 44.26% of 235 first preference votes were for Option F;
• the next most popular option (Option E) attracted only 17.02% of first preference votes;
• 178/235 votes - 75.74% included Option F somewhere in their list of preferences. So yes, a vast majority would definitely appear to have no problem with the status quo.

You know I support it. I have done since joining WP. But my proposal to Evertype above, which you object so strongly to, is absolutely genuine. I've proposed a poll advertised as widely as possible. I've proposed that it take place after a "time out", following the three recent polls here. I've proposed that it be limited to options that actually stand a chance, rather than include the likes of Option A from 2009, which attracted a miserable 3.4% of first preferences. Taken together, I think most people would accept that as being a reasonable compromise or concession from someone whose "side" has the status quo in place. All I'm really asking in return is that the other "side" concede that the status quo is a valid position that may well remain in place. There is no bad faith there. Please, therefore, stop with the personal attacks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you got it. I was wondering since I hadn't heard back. And sounds like a reasonable approach to me above. --HighKing (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup - see my reply of the 3rd November under 'Temporary move', above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if you would drop this "vast majority" crap. Vastness does not apply in a poll with 235 participants. Moreover, it ignores the real problem, which is that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state is a source of perpetual argument which does nothing but undermine every Ireland-related article on the encyclopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 17:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The status quo does nothing but perpetuate the problem, no matter how much some of you like it. We had a vote two years ago. The status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state won. We had a two-year moritorium on discussion. That should have been enough to see whether that status quo useage was stable, should it not? Well, now the moritorium is over. The problem has not gone away. It is not difficult to recognize that if, even after two years of stability based on that poll, the problem has not gone away, then it is probable that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state is and will remain problematic for some people, whether in the minority or in the majority. To address the problem (and the problem is an unstable project beset with adversarial argument and brinksmanship and abuse and bad feelings and passive-aggressiveness and on and on and on), it seems sensible to do something else than fight to perpetuate the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state. Bastun may have a preference, but has not responded to my thesis, that if the articles were named other than the status quo Republic of Ireland, we might get out of the hole we are all in. And we are all in it together. Accordingly, I propose that the next poll does not contain the status quo use of Republic of Ireland as the article title for the state as an option, but instead explore the optimal use of other options. Because we know that the status quo use of Republic of Ireland is nothing but a source of bad-feelings and discord. We're all grown-ups. We can settle on another name-configuration that doesn't undermine Irish articles on the Wikipedia, can we not? -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the nettle?

The nettle is accepting that no matter how perfect the argument for Republic of Ireland as name for the article about the state, it cannot attract consensus, and this undermines the whole WikiProject Ireland. It is realizing that in the poll in 2009, Republic of Ireland won—but that its "winning" didn't actually solve anything. And since the Wikipedia is not about "winning", the nettle this time is to have a poll on a number of options excluding the Republic of Ireland option. We know that that one can "win". And we know that its winning doesn't achieve anything.

That is what I want the members of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be brave enough, and adult enough, to do. To choose another path, a path that—in two years' time perhaps—can allow us to see whether we can collaborate, and work on top-notch Ireland-related articles on this encyclopaedia with a different name-configuration that might be more conducive to us all working together amicably.

I am in Bemidji heading for Minneapolis and Chicago, and Philadelphia tomorrow morning. I may not be able to look in for several days.

I hope that members of the Collaboration will grasp this nettle: the nettle of actual collaboration. -- Evertype·✆ 17:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you explained what a 'nettle' was. I was too embarrassed (these last few hours) to ask what it was. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

All right. It isn't difficult. -- Evertype·✆ 04:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying other editors should change to do what you're saying because you'll keep on nagging about it until you get your way? Well that's a fine idea of consensus and collaboration you've got there. I asked you before and I'll ask you again now, what will you do if the poll does not agree with you? Dmcq (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Basically I'm saying that we have had two years of Republic of Ireland as the name for the article of the state, and that in the intervening two years nothing has changed. The name has not become more acceptable to a selection of editors by constant use. And the consensus of the Collaboration was to re-open discussions about naming. Accordingly, it is clear that Republic of Ireland has failed to be a solution that everyone can accept. Naturally, the thing to do is to examine a range of other options, and try them on, say for two years. If then we see a huge upswelling of demand to return to Republic of Ireland then we should consider that. But I predict that we will not see such a demand. What I am basically saying is that this slow process has proved that Republic of Ireland is a poor name for the article about the state, and so now it is encumbant upon the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to try something else. Once again: the problem is not the truth-value of the article name. A variety of names are accurate. The problem is unending argument over the article names. It is time to do something to put an end to that argument -- Evertype·✆ 04:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What? Things aren't the way you want them to be, so we all have change to something else closer to what you want, even though there's consensus for the status quo? No, sorry, not going to happen. There are a lot of things I don't like WP, but I still have to put up with them when consensus goes against me. And I'm sorry, I reject your central premise. Yes, there's argument now about the article names, but during the moratorium, it was only raised a couple of times, people were pointed here, and kept on working. Pipelinking worked fine over those two years. We likely wouldn't be having this argument now except for one very determined and repetitive user. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please don't feign shock and horror. And please don't misrepresent me. You don't have any idea whether I am one of those people who find Republic of Ireland offensive in an emotional or intellectual way or not; I have merely observed that part of the problem with WikiProject Ireland is that a segment of the editing population think so, and that solutions tried so far have not led them to cease to think so. So it is inappropriate for you to attack me (as you have), accusing me of wanting to force a change because I don't like the name. I want to force a change because I am utterly disgusted by the immaturity of this WikiProject. There is no consensus for Republic of Ireland remaining the article name. There was a poll in 2009 which had a result of freezing the name. That wasn't consensus. It was an election. But when the moratorium was over, it became clear that there was not consensus to retain the freeze. That means that the moratorium on moving from Republic of Ireland has failed to be an effective solution to a problem which the WikiProject Ireland has had since 2002. A number of editors quit working on Irish topics entirely, discontent with the kind of "ownership" people like you took over the Collaboration project. Look at your attack here. You don't respond to the core problem no matter how often I mention it. What is urgent is that we get an editing environment where people who live in the state feel comfortable about the encyclopaedia. Not one where some people lord it over others by having won something. Pipelinking is a navigation mechanism; you can pipelink from anything to anything else, and you will be able to do so when Republic of Ireland is no longer the name of the article about the state. Trying to belittle this whole thing by pooh-poohing "one very determined and repetitive user" is not constructive. If you haven't noticed, other editors have chimed in here agreeing with my assessment of the problem. So it's not just one editor. And you don't own, and don't have any particular authority within the project, simply because you've lurked about on these pages for a long time. It is time we do something constructive and collaborative that has a chance of ending this long and damaging dispute. Will you be a part of the solution? Or will you be one of those who tries to perpetuate a structure which favours one POV and which has been proved to be toxic to the WikiProject Ireland? -- Evertype·✆ 05:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't feigning shock, I was shocked. Above, you don't appear to have much of a problem with my proposal. In this section, you're now demanding that any new poll not include the status quo. I still don't accept your premise - sure, maybe some editors don't work in Irish areas any more. Do they work on WP at all? Editors come and go all the time (and reports elsewhere suggest a substantial number of WP contributors have left over the past couple of years). I'm well aware I don't own or have any particular authority within the project or any single page on WP. Nor do you. Which is why I won't be accepting diktat that there is only one "final solution". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC) PS - the one very determined and repetitive user I was referring to was not you.

(edit conflict)As I see it, all be it from the other side of the globe, we have an island called "Ireland" that has existed for a long time under that name (since before Shakespeare ISTR), we have a country that occupies part of that island, and has existed in its current form for (shall we say) less than 100 years, that country came into existence as a result of an armed struggle, where many (on both sides) died. The circumstances surrounding that "creation" are sill, to a number of the inhabitance of the British Isles, and for a number of reasons painful. That can't be undone, no mater what anyone would like to do. Since an all encompassing article on both the island and country would be too large, we are left with having to have one on the county and one on the island, in the same way there is an article on New Guinea the island and Indonesien and Papua-Neuguinea the countries or Great Britain the island and England, Scotland and Wales the countries. So the article at Ireland, should be the one on the whole island as it existed before the country did and will exist as long as the country does, if not longer. So that leaves the question of what to call the article on the country, and of all the suggestions so far made, none is any better (and most a lot worse) than Republic of Ireland, stick brackets in the name such as Ireland (State) oder Ireland (Country) and know one will find that on a search, I don't for one moment think anyone is confused by the current name, it is used by international organisations to describe the country (I accept not by all, but they don't have the issue of having to distinguish between the island and the country). Mtking ^(edits) 05:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, here you are talking about the truth-value of the article titles, not the problem the Wikipedia as a whole has as a result of the longstanding conflict about the article names in Irish. Sswonk has, above, shown that it is likely that most people looking for an article about the state type Ireland, and most people who type Republic of Ireland are looking for the football team. Yes, the word "Ireland" is polyvalent. But what is needed is an article title that does not just divide the editing community. We must do better.

Good night all, from Chicago. -- Evertype·✆ 05:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If we (again) concentrated on changing the name of the island article, there'd be less resistance to changing the country article title. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't follow, surely the island is at the right place for the article on the island ? Mtking ^(edits) 06:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If concentration was put on moving the island article to Ireland (island), then that would free up the name Irland for the country article. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That just makes the situation worse ..... Mtking ^(edits) 07:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a general query from an outsider. I stumbled on this a couple days ago and obviously it's been a heated debate for years here and depending on where you live the arguing will go this way and that. I'm in the US and tonight at a party I asked my 20 guests "if they were to look up Ireland in wikipedia, where would they expect to be forwarded to... the Island or the Country? (In the US, country and state are pretty synonymous). All but one said the island which is what I was expecting. I told them of the debate here and none of them could figure out why some mediator hasn't put their foot down and simply said enough is enough, "Ireland" is going to a disambiguation page that lists Ireland (island), Ireland (state), Northern Ireland. I told them that wikipedia doesn't really work that way and they were telling me things like "isn't this encyclopedia for us, not for editors. What's important is for us to find what we're looking for and a page with a list would do that." So this was a group that wanted Ireland to mean the island of Ireland but for the good of the community thought it best to be on a disambiguation page. Why can't that work here? I usually edit tennis articles and we had a problem with the US Open meaning both a tennis and golf championship. Neither side could agree so now US Open is neither golf nor tennis but it leads to both. Maybe there are sensational arguments for why this won't work, but for the good of wikipedia isn't it better that no side wins this thing except our readers? Never voted, never commented here before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think if you did the same down here you would get the same result, most people going to visit the island and not the country. The more pepole try and argue this the more and more sure of the current names I become. Mtking ^(edits) 07:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that hasn't happened because it's not a very good idea? Fmph (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Because? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no point in wasting Ireland when at least one set of queries can be answered directly. The project should be designed for readers not editors own POV. Fmph (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thoughtful contribution, Fyunck. That "Ireland as a disambig" proposal was one of several that were discussed and voted on two years ago. I can see how from where you're standing it looks like the obvious compromise, like the golf and tennis one, but it's not ideal, for two reasons. First, those who don't want to see one page move certainly don't want to see three page moves, so it's not in fact a compromise at all; it only appeals to one side of the debate. Second, to a lot of people, especially Irish people, "Ireland (island)" is as objectionable as "Republic of Ireland" is to those on the other side; it relegates our country (and many of us see the whole island as our country) to what one editor once described as "a lump of rock". Besides, if most people (if your friends are a representative sample) get what they're looking for when they type "Ireland", doesn't that make it the primary meaning, and so why should it be the dab page? Scolaire (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, there be the white elephant in the room. The likely reason behind the arguments over the country article's name - moving to Ireland would create the impression that the country covers the entire island. TBH, a true Irish nationalist would reject having the country at that title, as it would appear as though re-unification was being abandoned. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

@Scolaire. Your "first" absolutely means nothing to readers. I'm not talking about any editors point of view because my friends as readers wouldn't care at all. So they (and I) don't care about 10 page moves if the final result for readers is that they and those who think polar opposite can find the page they want easily. Personally since this is an English based wikipedia I don't really care what the Irish or any particular group feels about things so long as the majority of English speakers can find what they are looking for easily. In reading through these arguments there are obviously plenty of people who also think first of Ireland as the state. The US, being much further from the situation, is going to be biased towards it being an island. And you'll note that even though my friends picked the Island as their first choice they all thought it was best for an article, where readers would be looking at it from a different point of view, to forward to a generalized place as opposed to a place that could confuse/confound many readers. I realize that this little ditty will be buried amongst all the very technical aspects of why it should move or not... and that most here will shrug it off as rantings of some nut on wikipedia. I've worked the Burma article so I know the routine, and that's fine. But since I had recently found it and had a readily accessible pile of friends at my disposal, it became a good topic at the house, and I thought I would share. I didn't really post this as a compromise for editors since I'm not really sure how most voted between all those choices last go around. All I would care about is, given the current climate here, what is the best solution for all our English readers so they can find what they want quickly and easily. There will always be a group of editors who feel quite strongly about one thing or the other (I've been guilty of that myself)... that's sort of the wikipedia beast. Our bottom line though should be to be as accurate as we can while making sure "most readers" can find what they want. There is an Ireland state and there is an Ireland island. It's an argument of common usage at this English Wikipedia. Since two little New Zealand kids might want to study about one or the other isn't it easier for them to be pointed to a page that lays out the multiple uses of the term? That way they'll have more time to watch all that sex and violence on tv :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is its not always easy to just choose between the two options of the island or the country on a disam page. For example, If you arrive at that page, and you are looking for a little information about Irish culture.. you might choose the country article thinking the island article may just be about geographical information. But that is not the case, the island article covers culture for the island as a whole and it is wrong and unfair, for an article about a country that has existed for less than one hundred years to "claim ownership" of Irelands entire history and its culture. I believe your sample of friends returned the result that would be reflective of English speaking people around the world, especially in the case of the USA where ancestry will be important. If someone says they are from Ireland.. they will always mean the island of Ireland, but they will not always mean the Republic of Ireland, a country that has existed for a certain period of time and only represents most not all of the island. Another example would be rugby, there is an all island rugby team but many people who are unaware of that may think they need to choose the country as the obvious choice for something that is usually associated with a country not islands.

That to me suggests the island is the primary topic and this seems to be reflected in stats for the page views. On St Patricks Day 2011, Ireland went from 23,200 views the day before to 41,800 compared to Republic of Ireland going from 8,300 to 12,900. Last month Ireland had 267521 views, compared to Republic of Irelands 133116. The article at Ireland currently provides most people who arrive at the page the information they are seeking, and in the hatnote and the second paragraph the link to the country article is clearly provided. Going for a disam page will mean everyone will have to make an additional click and in quite a few cases click the wrong page because the situation is far more complex than choosing between something like Georgia (U.S. state) and Georgia (country). BritishWatcher (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at this from the other side

Here's a thought, perhaps the new Irish President could solve this and the debt crisis at the same time, why not sell the naming rights to the country, perhaps he could tempt Guinness into renaming the country "Guinnessland", then we could move Republic of Ireland and end the problem, and the new government of Guinnessland could use the money to reduce the black hole in the budget. Mtking ^(edits) 07:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

On that note, I commend this proposed new Constitution to ye - especially Articles 3, 4, and 6. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC) (PS - I wonder if Mr McNally is a regular reader here...)

They must have guessed there would be a need for it like that when they put the white area on the flag. I can just see the Guinness harp in the middle there now. Or perhaps the more stylized Ryanair one. :) Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There are ideas that you just can't get out of your mind once you have heard of them. Hans Adler 12:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Joining discussion regarding Ireland.

May others join in the discussion regarding Ireland or is the discussion restricted to registered users with similar views? 58.7.244.17 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Troublesome editors (registered or not) aren't welcomed here. You've been a troublesom editor these last few days, by continuously posting non-sense. Furthermore, you've been evading your blocks, which is another sign that you're only here to be annoying. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is actually annoyed by the title?

I asked before if anyone would identify themselves as being personally annoyed by the title 'Republic of Ireland' and Sswonk said no and now we have Evertype saying they are just arguing about it because of it causing problems to other people. Could I please ask again - does anyone here actually feel personally offended or distrustful or aggravated or whatever by the title 'Republic of Ireland'? Or is everyone going to say oh no I'm only concerned about getting the trouble solved for everyone else? Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Me. But only at the article title. Using it to dab between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is fine, etc, etc. As per normal everyday use. --HighKing (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And p.s. here Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive is a really bloody conflict over the name of an article. Do you feel as strong as these people that your preferred title should be the one used? Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And I'm asking because I haven't seen any problems elsewhere caused by this disagreement whereas there's another matter which every so often does cause actual trouble and resentment and I'd prefer it be dealt with instead. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Given there are over 100 1st preference votes in the last poll for moving it somewhere else, I'd guess that in amongst those you'd find one or two. Why not go through the list of votes and ask each one in turn? Fmph (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If they're that annoyed I'd have thought they'd have responded to my last request never mind waiting for this one. People talk about solving the problem here, and I'd like to see exactly how much of a problem there is here or are they just talking on behalf of what in their view others think? Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Changing the Ireland articles on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, isn't a good. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no relevance. What's relevant is whether people are discussing their own point of view or their imaginings of what other people think. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, at least three times in the last few days I've found that when I address a direct question to the "change" camp either nobody answers except people like yourself and Britishwatcher from the "status quo" camp, or somebody latches on to what they consider a negative word or phrase and ignores the substantive question or point. It doesn't bode well for dialogue.

Talk:Sega Genesis and Mega Drive really is food for thought! There we have an equally furious war going back to 2005 and yet in all my time here I was unaware of the article, never mind the controversy. Given that there are probably as many WP readers worldwide interested in Sega as in Ireland, it makes you wonder whether our little war here has caused so much as a ripple in the community generally, never mind the doomsday scenario that some people like to paint. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Guarenteed, the discussion/arguments on this topic barely registers on the whole community. Wikipedia is a big place, a very big place. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving not working?

Does anyone with some experience of the archive bots know why this page is no longer being auto-archived? Fmph (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the code i think it's suppossed to archive after 10 days, and the thread at the very top was closed on the 21 October, so it mustn't be working right. Then again the archive box says "Threads older than 10 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.". Mabuska ^(talk) 12:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've manually archived all sections with no comments in November into #27 and #28. I don't know why the bot got stuck, but probably it'll get over the glitch.

—WWoods (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder is it related to the page protection? Fmph (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Question - this may possibly be too complex, or even impossible as a solution. Currently, for titles of films, books etc, there is a piece of code inserted which renders the title in italic type. There is also a piece of code inserted in articles where the initial letter begins with a small letter (iPod, iPhone, etc.) when it would otherwise be rendered with an uppercase letter, and a piece of code which super- or sub-scripts the initial letter/number in certain astronomical designations. Is it possible to render the title "Republic of Ireland" so that the reader only sees "Ireland"? This way we could allow all current dablinks to remain, keep the island at the unadorned "Ireland" location and the article on the state would be located at "Republic of Ireland", even if the reader only actually sees "Ireland"? ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 20:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It is possible. It has even been done (and quickly undone - see here). There are two issues with it. The first is the simple one: if we don't want to change the title why should we want to pretend we have? The second is the more serious: There will be two different articles apparently entitled "Ireland". Readers won't know which one they're on, they may not even know they're on a different one than yesterday, and they won't understand why they're different, or why they seem to keep changing back and forth. It's an ingenious solution, just not the right one. Scolaire (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh! I hadn't realised it had been discussed before, never mind so recently. Ah well, back to the drawing board I guess! ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 21:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I do really like Rannpháirtí Anaithnid's suggestion of showing the parenthetical disambiguator in smaller font though. That might make 'Ireland (state)' more palatable to a lot of people - myself included. Is there any update on the feasibility of this option? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It can be easily done using {{|DISPLAYTITLE:<small>Republic of</small> Ireland}}. I can't say I'm keen on messing around like that, it just seems like another can of worms to me. Dmcq (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Cosmetic changes miss the point. The title is typed every time a link to the article is created. This title need not be displayed any differently than any other, it should simply be a good title. Sswonk (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Or at least not a bad one. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 02:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

On Bastun's comments on the nettle

Bastun, I didn't previously comment on your proposal above, deliberately. So I don't know why you assumed that I agreed with you. However, I may do so now. I find some of it quite constructive—just not your point 3, which doesn't address the problem, and your point 7, which is not necessary. Insisting on including Republic of Ireland on the poll seems to me to be an attempt to perpetuate what is clearly something that just does the WikiProject Ireland no good. The previous poll stabilized that name for two years, and now that the moratorium is over we are back at square one. It's time to try something else for two years. Remember, it is not the truth-value of the article name which is the problem. (a) It is possible to argue that Republic of Ireland is good or bad for the name of the article of the state. (b) It is possible to argue that Ireland is good or bad for the name of the article of the state. (b) It is possible to argue that Ireland (state) is good or bad for the name of the article of the state. But everything we have seen since 2002 suggests that both (a) and (b) here just case divisiveness and brinksmanship, creating "winners" and "losers" and damaging WikiProject Ireland. It is WikiProject Ireland that is important. This Collaboration exists to serve WikiProject Ireland. Not to support unionist views or nationalist views or any of that. This Collaboration exists to try to make WikiProject Ireland a better place, a more inviting place, for people to help improve articles that will teach all the world about our island and what happens here. That is why I believe Republic of Ireland on its own should not be on a poll for the name of the article on the state: it will not improve anything. Nor do I believe that the articles about the island and the state should be merged at this time into a single article Ireland. I know that there are strong arguments for that—but I believe that at this juncture, now, that would be just as divisive. And it is the divisiveness which is the problem. Not some "perfect truth" to be encoded the article names. -- Evertype·✆ 00:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I will therefore propose the following:

1. Give us a rest. No new poll until Festivus shenanigans are well and truly over. Say, second week in January.
2. Use the time to come up with a limited number of new poll options. The first goal is to replace Republic of Ireland with something else for the article for the state, since this is the primary cause of the emotive and sociological problem which bedevils the WikiProject Ireland.
3. No other option should appear in the poll unless it can attract significant support (I'm completely open as to what that support threshold should be). This will allow us to kill off problematic/no-hoper proposals such as "Move 'Republic of Ireland' to 'Ireland (country)'".
4. When options, if any, have been chosen, and a method of counting the votes has been agreed (PR-STV, IRV, Concordet, first-past-the-post, whatever):
   1. Arbcom sanction is sought to hold it and make the result binding;
   2. Arbcom are requested to appoint administrator/overseers/moderators for it;
   3. Anyone that wishes to may contribute a statement, same as in 2009, and the index of statements will be linked prominently from the poll page.
5. The poll gets advertised as widely as possible (if I have to put up with hearing about a women-only wikimeet in Scunthorpe, or see a picture of Jimmy Wales seeking donations every time I check my watchlist, they can put up with hearing about the new poll).
6. The poll result is binding for a period of two years.

Thoughts? -- Evertype·✆ 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one going on about it currently. I'd be quite happy to have another poll in six months and I think if you hold one so soon it is practically bound to fail so I can't see why you do it. I see no need to drag Arbcom in yet as there is no problem in having the occasional poll if people don't go on and on about it afterwards. As far as I can see there's a couple of people saying there is a problem without being able to show any evidence of what they say. Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I must reject option 2, as Republic of Ireland should be included in any poll. That it offends or causes friction is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Again Oppose : There is a clear 2.4:1 majority support for the status quo, which is the country staying at Republic of Ireland, the government themselves uses the term (see File:Envelope from Irish Revenue Commissioners.jpeg if you doubt it) so any poll that excludes Republic of Ireland smacks of is gerrymandering. I also agree with the points raised above, in that we are told that "people are offended" by the name of the article being called Republic of Ireland but so far not a single editor is willing to say that they are in that group. Mtking ^(edits) 06:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See - it's comments like "the government themselves uses the term" that smacks of misunderstand the differnce (and necessity) between using it as a "name" and using it as a "disambiguating term" or description. And if you're using the example of "the government", why not actually follow their lead and stated guidelines. Or any other governments for that matter? --HighKing (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the comment is exactly what is needed, it goes to disprove the ridiculous claim that the name is offensive or in some way objectionable, it cant be if the government uses it in such a public way. Mtking ^(edits) 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is your point? That it would be OK for us to use it simply as a name, but not as a disambiguating term as is currently the case? That seems a bit perverse, given that in Irish law it is stated to be the description of the state and not its name. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to HK, I believe he is saying the opposite. Postage is not free if posted in Belfast, which is in Ireland, so "Republic of Ireland" is used as a disambiguation. Likewise , we use ROI within articles for disambiguation, but he doesn't think we should use it as a name for the article. Scolaire (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Scolaire - that's exactly the point. --HighKing (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though I would say that even in the article title it's there purely as a form of disambiguation: the article begins by saying " Irland, described as..." which makes it pretty clear that as far as we're concerned, the name is Irland. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words referring to the county as the Republic of Ireland as a way of distinguishing it from entities that share the name is used by the government of the county when they need to do just that. So why is it not acceptable to use that here when we have exactly the same issue ? Mtking ^(edits) 23:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Because using the dab term as the "Title" is misleading and wrong, especially given the history of usage between the UK and Ireland. That's really the main reason. --HighKing (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

How is it misleading ? and how is it wrong ? is not the country a Republic, does not the country use the term when it needs to ? Mtking ^(edits) 01:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The simplest way of ensuring that only options with significant support are in the mix at the end would be to allow any option to be added to the list with just a proposer and seconder and then run the poll on a preference basis. Otherwise you end up with a minimum of 2 polls, one to choose the options and another to choose the result, which would give 2 opportunities for tactical voting. Just put 'em all on the list and let people choose their preferences. Fmph (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a follow-on question from Dmcq's: hands up those who believe that this is causing an "emotive and sociological problem which bedevils the WikiProject Ireland"? Looking at the WikiProject talk page, it seems to me that it's trundling along just fine on its own emotive and sociological problems and that this isn't impacting on it at all! I also notice that the great majority of contributors there have not chosen to express any point of view here. Scolaire (talk) 08:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never fully understood why this WikiProject exists, when there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And true to form, somebody prefers to make a tangential observation than to answer my question! This project exists so that WP:IE isn't used for all the page move arguments, which would take it over otherwise. Scolaire (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

These page move discussions 'are not' hurting this WikiProject in anyway. GoodDay (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been a poll above.. people voted for the status quo to remain. There is no justification for a new wikipedia wide poll, especially as the people who are demanding one will still not be satisfied if Republic of Ireland wins again. So why do we need to go to through a lot of work (to draw up options and acceptable wording, which will take a couple of months)... just to be back to square one with the same editors making the same objections a few months later? If we do have a wikiwide poll again, then the "Status Quo" needs to be a clear option.. no putting all options as A,B,C,D,E,F like they are all equal. The status quo must be clearly labelled... Republic of Ireland has been used for over 5 years and as of yet no clear case has been made as to why we must hold a new vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any multi-option poll at any time under any circumstances. The 2009 poll was agreed on as a way around a specific problem: the difficulty in gauging community consensus in a straight poll because close to 50:50 is always "no consensus" and because it tends to be restricted to one option. It served a purpose and it produced a result. It also generated a huge amount of anger in the months leading up to it, an unbelievable amount of bile while it was running, and accusations of bad faith and mismanagement after it was closed. Any repeat exercise will serve no purpose (since community consensus will not have changed) and will only provide an opportunity for more histrionics of the most undesirable kind. If there is to be a poll at any time, it should be a straight RM to a title or titles that have some chance of success because there is some measure of agreement on this page. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you inherit the gift of foresight from your parents? Or was it something you developed yourself over the years? Fmph (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The premise of this proposal is that excluding one option will somehow bring harmony to the WP project, and the option that should be excluded is "Republic of Ireland", because some people find it objectionable and/or it causes "divisiveness and brinksmanship." Essentially, it is saying that if a small number of editors make enough noise, then they get their way, overruling consensus, and/or options acceptable to a majority of 20:4 in the most recent poll, and an option acceptable to 75% of voters in the 2009 poll. That is not how Wikipedia works. Nor should it be. There are plenty of "consensuses" on Wikipedia I do not like - I can list some if you'd like - but would it be right if I was able to say on relevant talk pages "No, sorry lads, I know you always outnumber me but I'm sorry, it's a divisive issue, therefore you're just going to have to change"? Nope. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Add reply: Evertype, you say in the first line of this section "Bastun, I didn't previously comment on your proposal above, deliberately. So I don't know why you assumed that I agreed with you." I assumed it from your comment on my proposal in the Nettle section above, posted at 17:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC), where you say that you agree to a new poll, in January, that you also agree to it having reduced options, and go on to say: "I think that the island and the state and the disambiguation titles (all three) should be listed even if in some options all three are changed from the present configuration and in others only one or two are." (my emphasis added). No mention of excluding RoI from all options. Excuse my confusion. But maybe now you can see why I was shocked at your current proposal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this still going on? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it won't archive for another four days because of that query :) Assuming archiving can be made work again. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just great to see the hardliners insist on Republic of Ireland even though it is clear that a two-year lockdown on that title has not resulted in a consensus that the name is suitable. Of course they want it on the poll because they want it to "win" again. But, again, that doesn't address the problem, which is a persistent and perennial adversarial relationship amongst people in WikiProject Ireland. My suggestion is that something else be used for two years, and my belief is that this will put the real problem to rest. -- Evertype·✆ 00:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The reverse is true, those who don't like Republic of Ireland want it excluded so that it does not win, you can't go and excluded one option that has considerable level of support just because some don't want it.

It is clear to me that there will never be anything approaching consensus on this. Those who think that there will probably need to step back from this debate. The best that can be achieved is probably what we have got now. Mtking ^(edits) 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be excluded so that it does not "win" because its "winning" does not make WikiProject Ireland a better place for everyone to work. It doesn't help "collaboration". A two-year moratorium on discussion didn't solve anything either. Soon as it was over, the arguments started again. Since that particular choice doesn't help make WikiProject Ireland a place where people can get along without bitching at each other about it, offering long arguments pro and con about it (that most people don't even read), the obvious choice is to go with something else and see if that improves things. I believe it will. -- Evertype·✆ 12:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There's too much concentration on the country article. The island article is the true focal point. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to have twice as much of a row, certainly. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A two-year lockdown on anything can not result in a consensus that the name is suitable, or on anything else, so that's hardly a big surprise. More significantly, however, a two-month discussion with no holds barred has not resulted in a consensus on anything. If there were only a couple of hardliners holding out against a mass of moderate editors, they could have and should have been swept aside and the change should have been effected to general applause. The fact that that hasn't happened perhaps means it's time for a re-think. Achieving a consensus necessarily involves convincing opponents of the desirability of change or of compromise. In particular, if you're going to argue that "the problem is not the truth-value of the article names; it is that the status quo of the article names causes bad feelings and ill-will among many if not most editors", then surely you must earnestly endeavour to reduce bad feelings and ill-will by appealing to people's better natures. You simply cannot do this by referring to ordinary Joe's who are happy with the way things are as "hardliners who insist on the title" or as people who "just want to 'win'". As it happens, I find myself agreeing with you more and more, but your aggressive and hectoring tone invariably cause me to get back in my trench. I think you should let it go until the New Year (as everybody else already seems to have done), and in the meantime think about how to phrase your proposals in such a way that people on the other side will want to listen to them. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"Aggressive and hectoring"? I'm frustrated by the fact that the actual argument is ignored by the handful of "It must be Republic of Ireland" voices we see here on this page above. Most of those are not "ordinary Joes". You, thankfully, have returned to the argument, that the problem is not the truth-value of the article names; it is that the status quo of the article names causes bad feelings and ill-will among many if not most editors, and if you find yourself agreeing then please get off the fence and state boldly that you're willing to grasp the nettle and go with another name for two years and see how it goes. I don't believe that after two years of, for instance, Ireland (state) that we will have the same level of argument that we have now. I think that in the New Year we should have another community-wide poll, with fewer options, none of them Republic of Ireland, allowing for editors to make their pro and con arguments, and also allowing for members of the project to express their unhappiness with having a poll. Because digging in and insisting on Republic of Ireland is part of the problem. "Hectoring"? That's bullying, and quite frankly I and some others see the bullies to be those fighting for what they call the "status quo". Not having it, not any more. That solution has been tried and found wanting. It is time we grasp the nettle and try another solution. -- Evertype·✆ 12:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you please end this 'we' business claiming to speak on behalf of some silent majority. You are speaking on your own behalf just like everyone else here. And please stop harping on about the bad-feelings of others, if you have bad-feelings yourself about it yourself then just say so and why. Stop talking as if you're trying to save endless discussion here when you're the one stopping it all getting archived and laid to rest for a couple of months. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe Evertype is making sense. And I've stayed away from here precisely because of the "bad feelings". I get on with most editors here, yet this issue has proved divisive. --HighKing (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And I know a number of others who hold the same view. That is why I have, in frustration, proposed to actually do something about it. -- Evertype·✆ 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Evertype, I will get off the fence and state boldly that I'm willing to grasp the nettle and go with another name, when you begin to treat me and others of my view with respect. Your response has given me little, if any, hope that that is going to happen at any time. By hectoring I meant, not bullying but domineering, in the sense of overbearing, dictatorial, bossy, assertive, dominant, forceful, commanding, pushy, strong-willed etc. That approach has gained you a grand total of no ground at all over the last three years+, and it's not going to gain you another inch as long as you continue with it.

HighKing, Evertype does make sense when he says that the issue is divisive and that people stay away becasue of "bad feelings", but then he spoils it by making the bad feelings worse. I have tried on at least four occasions to move the discussion on and look for ways to work towards consensus in favour of change, but each time he has either ignored me or attacked me. I too am going to stay away from now on, because as long as Evertype continues to rage in this way there is no possibility whatever of anything positive being done, even if every other editor experienced a sudden outburst of peace, love and understanding. Scolaire (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Scolaire, you're one of the people I get on with. Even shared a pint with. I respect your views and I believe I now even understand the why of your views. I'd be happy to get involved again if we could find a way to work together. But some editors here simply participate in order to disrupt any discussions that look like changing consensus. It's a tactic we're all well used to in the British/Irish battleground. It's why many editors feel the only recourse is to withdraw participation. Trolls on both sides mind. And one "neutral" (...). And they keep getting fed. I don't believe Evertype intends to attack anybody personally, but would like participation to move beyond the black and white polarization that has manifest. --HighKing (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And the respect is mutual, but with due respect, I would like you to get off the fence and say now who are the editors who simply participate in order to disrupt any discussions that look like changing consensus, and what form this disruption takes. I have seen Bastun, Dmcq, Mtking, Britishwatcher and maybe others make statements of fact or opinion that seem to cause you considerable annoyance, but those statements are very much part of the flow of the discussion; they are the opposite of disruptive. You say below that there is "a small cadre of editors that make it their business to disrupt discussions rather than participate by engaging civilly" and that they are "a united group of editors who prefer the current title." Why can I not see that? Who are they and when did they post, and how did they demonstrate this "unity"? It's time to name names and show diffs. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you just looking for an excuse to hold your ground? Now I'm not asking you nicely enough? Am I not allowed to feel frustrated with this situation, where nothing but ill will and more ill will is generated day after day, month after month, holding WikiProject Ireland hostage to argument? Damn right I'm strong-willed. It's called being bold. And challenging everyone here, on both sides, to think laterally and choose to try something that might have a chance at being stable two years from January. So you just attack me, saying I don't "respect" your "view". I have said from the beginning that I recognize arguments both for and against Republic of Ireland. That means I respect holders of both views. But that doesn't matter, because the truth-value of either view is of no consequence, since neither side will ever convince the other side of the validity of its view. Accordingly, I challenge everyone to grasp the nettle of giving up a dysfunctional article name in favour of something else. And yes, I'm arguing this case forcefully, and if you just want to be offended and let that be an excuse to do nothing as opposed to joining in, then, well, I guess that'd be your choice, but it doesn't make anything better. -- Evertype·✆ 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not "attacked" you, Scoláire. Try to assume good faith. But every time you "have tried to move the discussion" you have, it seems to me, ended up proposing nothing at all. Concrete suggestions, please. Not blythe suggestions that we might talk about stuff. I'm not raging. I'm challenging everyone to do something about this stalemate. "Softly softly" isn't a good way to challenge people. I'm trying to shake things up. -- Evertype·✆ 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't challenge. Don't try to shake things up. You are raging. You are attacking me. You're not asking me - or anybody - nicely enough. You don't respect holders of both views. You don't respect anybody. I will not engage with you ever again. When you leave this discussion, I will come back with the concrete suggestions that I have made and you haven't seen because you were too busy being "frustrated". Until then, go ahead and do your thing and blame the rest of the world for not seeing how reasonable you are. Scolaire (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have challenged, because WikiProject Ireland is hamstrung by "the status quo". You know, just gainsaying me and saying that everything I say is a lie doesn't make it so, though maybe it makes it easier for you to pretend that I'm not part of this community and trying to work towards a solution. I do respect holders of both views on Republic of Ireland even if you say I do not, and my respect for them is irrelevant, because that title is just a focus for strife. What benefit holding on to it? None. But people like to hold on to it, for whatever reason. That needs to be challenged, even if it's uncomfortable, because what we see from those who favour Republic of Ireland is nothing but "the status quo is good, the status quo is good". But it isn't good. It gets us nowhere. (So does your damning me as utterly unreasonable and forswearing ever communicating with me.) It would be great if you wouldn't play games here. I'm not. And I'm serious about getting something done about this stupid, embarrassing situation which does nothing but prevent WikiProject Ireland from functioning otherwise than as a crucible for strife. I think we can do better. OK, you might not like my tone. Nor do I care much what reads as a holier-than-thou attitude from you (whether you intend it or not). But I love Ireland (and all the Irelands) and I want this to be a better place. Republic of Ireland has proved to prevent that, and so it's time to ditch it. I don't believe that whispering and cajoling is going to get people to agree to that. Challenge is designed to jog people out of their current abstractions. I am not abusing people. I am challenging them to take a bold step towards something that might bring peace. -- Evertype·✆ 01:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Evertype, ya need to have 2 polls. The first, to determine which name Republic of Ireland should be moved to & the second - have that proposed name put up against Republic of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Aggrieved

HighKing, do you personally feel aggrieved and put off participating here because the name of the article is Republic of Ireland? Or are you put off because there are people here who will not behave civilly and discuss things properly? Do you believe that Evertype's suggestion to hold a poll without the current title 'Republic of Ireland' as an option and invite the rest of Wikipedia in is sound and sensible? Do you think there is a cabal with an agenda who fixed the results of the last RfC to keep the current title? Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq, I don't feel aggrieved in the slightest. Wrong word. I believe the title is incorrect for reasons I've set out before, and I would prefer a different title. The current title annoys me intensely. Not proper usage of "Republic of Ireland" to dab within articles mind you. I hold a view, same as anyone else. I understand many of the reasons put forward by both "sides". I don't participate here because there are a small cadre of editors that make it their business to disrupt discussions rather than participate by engaging civilly. I believe there is a united group of editors who prefer the current title. I believe the last RfC was unbalanced by the large British participation and their strong preference for "Republic of Ireland". I don't believe there's a secret cabal or agenda. I believe Evertype is making sense. Especially the point that after 2 years, nothing has changed - that has to be an indication that something fundamental is wrong with the title. I would also like to see if there is strong opposition to an alternative title. --HighKing (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. Annoyed by it being incorrect isn't quite enough grounds to strike out Republic of Ireland as a choice under the neutrality grounds of WP:TITLE you'd have to think that it really was non-neutral and emotive. I think you're tending that way a bit okay but I'm concerned you may be reading something into that last request to move and RfC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Archive_28 that wasn't there. Did you actually look at the user pages of the various supports and opposes? None of the three supports declare themselves as Irish though they might be and there were a lot of opposes who declared themselves as Irish and I only saw one who declare themselves UK and a couple came from Northern Ireland. You didn't !vote there at all which I find peculiar, did I miss something? Personally I'm happy to count people from NI as Irish enough to satisfy any 'Irish only' qualification as suitable for making a decision here but it wouldn't have mattered anyway. So overall I see only evidence against your supposition that a large British participation swayed the decision. Dmcq (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the user pages of support and oppose. I understand the positions of most if not all. I'm struggling to find an appropriate term to describe my "feelings" towards "Republic of Ireland" as the article title. The title really "annoys me intensely" - because it is factually incorrect, etc, etc - and for all the other reasons I've outlined ad nauseum previously. You didn't ask me to make an argument based on policy, you asked specifically for my degree of feeling, so that's what I've given you. I've stayed away from the recent voting because I don't see the point of "one side" simply trying to out vote "the other" - that approach is a foregone conclusion in any case. I've analysed the poll from 2 years ago and shared it with editors who have asked here - mainly editors that try to use statistics to back up retaining the title at "Republic of Ireland". I've posted summaries of those findings a number of times. But all arguments based on statistics miss the main point and are secondary to the main issue. For me, this is a collaborative project. For that reason, I'm happy to go with consensus, regardless of what my personal position is. But consensus in this case (from the poll) turned into a majority vote and proved divisive. In point of fact, I voted to retain the consensus in the first vote after the 2 year lockdown was up. But in the intervening time, it's clear that the title is still problematic. Evertype is pointing out that perhaps another approach involving changing the title to something else might actually result in more acceptance among a majority of editors. I believe this suggestion has some merit and I'd support a trial of a new title - without conflating the issue of the title with using "Republic of Ireland" as a correct dab term within articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We can all feel aggrieved. I feel aggrieved that people should be telling me that the name that people, including myself and pretty much everyone I knew except hardline republicans, regularly used without any problem whatsoever for the state I grew up in, a state I am quite fond of and even proud of despite all its faults, is ridiculous, outrageous, scandalous etc. I feel aggrieved that people are suggesting that the official usage of a foreign government should dictate (whether positively or negatively) what terms we can use for our state. Whose grievances are worth most? Who is more at fault for 'digging in and insisting' on their position, those who are happy with the very clear result of a lengthy decision-making process that showed the current position to be the most popular and the most widely acceptable, or those who find that result unpalatable and refuse to accept it, or say they are unwilling to contribute to related articles while it stands?

On the specific issue of the poll, several editors including myself have expressed willingness to accept a move from 'Republic of Ireland' to 'Ireland (state)' as a compromise, whether temporarily or otherwise. And I should say that I really don't like that idea, but if it results in less people being really really unhappy, I am willing to contemplate it - despite feeling to some extent emotionally blackmailed. But these editors only represent themselves, and they can commit themselves to supporting that option in a move request. I am not sure that they (we) have any right to agree on behalf of everyone else who supported what was clearly the most popular option last time, to entirely exclude that from any new discussion. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I'd like to know if there are people who are really really unhappy that the title of the article is Republic of Ireland. Not on the behalf of some vague others as Evertype keeps going on about but actual real people. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy with that title which was chosen in 2002. You expressed a desire to take a break from hearing why, so I will leave it at that. With regard to others, I will not speak for them but certainly Sarah777 (talk · contribs), and if I recall correctly recent objections from Lugnad (talk · contribs) and Tebibyte (talk · contribs) come to mind. These are a few, there are several who can be found to find the title unfortunate. The history of 2009 was fairly obvious, enough persons found trouble with the title at that time to force the creation of this forum, the posting of several position statements, and finally the heavily commented about polling. I won't get bogged down in defining "unhappy" for you. The situation itself is troubling. It should have been very easy from the outset to keep this from happening, simply use a different title. The adamant responses we find here against any change are really not normal, there is way to much pride and fear on display. Is it like a mural on a wall in a unionist or protestant or Roman Catholic or republican neighborhood, is the current title a "don't touch this" statement? Why is the resistance to do away with this poor title so fierce? In my view, many of the arguments against change seem to be arguments opposing the name of the state itself. If this website is bound by pillars such as no original research, reliable sources, verifiability, simple arguments against the true name of the state need to be discounted from the beginning. Those questions go to the core of the "happiness" of many. Sswonk (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It is like when I ask somebody "whether they are from the north or the south?" The conversation ceases and they go to engage in conversation with somebody else. It's funny that. 58.7.181.23 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the 'You expressed a desire to take a break from hearing why, so I will leave it at that' is about. I just don't imagine anybody who's grown up in Ireland feeling anything much about it and I can't see why anyone from outside should care that much either. I do see problems with putting in Ireland (state) when people start referring to it from other articles, they'll have to start sticking in Republic of Ireland or Ireland every single time and they're bound to start sticking in things like Southern Ireland. Most people think Republic of Ireland is just fine as a title for the article. So I am wondering if the push by you and Evertype falls under the 'neutrality in article titles' section of WP:Article titles. Both you and Evertype deny any great feelings about it yourselves, you make out you speak for other people and yet you go on and on. So since these people have not answered directly here I will go and ask them directly on their talk pages to come here and answer the question. Do they feel it is like saying 'Pro-life' to a 'Pro-choice' person? Or is it more like saying Bill Clinton should be titled William Jefferson Clinton. Or where in between does it go? Dmcq (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked me and others: I am not sure just what you mean by “about the degree of feeling you have whether the title Republic of Ireland being wrong,” It is not a matter of “feeling” It is factually wrong, it is incorrect – and that is fact – not an issue of “feeling”. As for “feeling”, you might mean does the term RoI cause offence. To me, not really, it just displays the ignorance of the speaker. Having said that there are instances where disambiguation is required and terms such as RoI, Irish Republic and others are appropriate. I do not know if I have understood your question or whether that is the answer you want. I hope that you found this helpful. Lugnad (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

+1 --HighKing (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnad with that being part of my reasons. Dmcq, here you asked me to give it a break for a while, so that is what I meant above where you write "I don't know what the 'You expressed a desire to take a break from hearing why, so I will leave it at that' is about." To avoid mucking this up, and I think you are taking a good approach here, I'll give an answer I think you'll find summarizes my view. RE: "is it more like saying Bill Clinton should be titled William Jefferson Clinton", no. If anything it is in fact a partial opposite of the William Jefferson or Bill titling debate. Bill Clinton should be titled Bill Clinton. Similarly, since it is by far the most commonly used, preferred and official name, the single word Ireland should be the focus for the article on the state, probably with a parenthetical dab such as Ireland (state) used in the title. Further clouding that analogy is the fact that RoI is not an official name and is in fact discouraged in protocol guides such as the EU publications style guide, while William Jefferson Clinton is an (the) official name of the ex President of the US, and he uses it with the middle name abbreviated for his current work. The Government of Ireland does not use the term in titles, nor does it use the "Government of the Republic of Ireland" at all. It's "Government of Ireland", full stop. So, the Clinton analogy is not where my objection lies. The much more common name, Ireland, should be used here, the site should not favor the incorrect use of a legislative "description" which raises the objections it has. It isn't "natural"; "the Republic" or "the south" are somewhat natural in conversation and body copy of prose, but can't be used as a title. RoI is wrong as a title, and can be easily replaced. All of the stringent opposition to change, and the convoluted logic used to try to make that title become the conclusion to a decision tree pathwork, that's what raises the alarms. Outside evidence of title usage indicates this website is an outlier on the title, yet byzantine inside politics has been able to maintain it against objections. Not good. Sswonk (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No "byzantine politics" needed. There are two articles that can lay claim to the title, one has a natural disambiguator (yes, you disagree it's a natural disambiguator, others disagree with you), one doesn't. Most people, given the 2009 poll, would seem not to have a problem with it. There may indeed be places where the use of RoI is discouraged, but this is not one of them. It lists the short names and official names of EU countries. In all cases, for Ireland, that's "Éire/Ireland". Not only is use of RoI not "discouraged" on that page - RoI isn't mentioned at all, since it doesn't need to be. Oh, sorry, just spotted the little footnote at the bottom. Interesting bit on the BI, too! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And on a proper read of the footnote, I think my original (struck out) point is still valid. It's saying - for Ireland, the UK, and the Netherlands - use the proper names of those countries, nothing more, nothing less. Don't use an incorrect name (Holland), a geographical term (British Isles), an outdated term (Irish Republic) or a disambiguator (Republic of Ireland). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're taking on dry policy terms. Correct name is not an overriding criterion in WP:TITLE. The only way I can see of removing 'Republic of Ireland' from consideration is to show actual evidence of it being a point of view term evoking an emotional response. And I don't mean people just saying they think others are affected that way. Highking has come closest to providing anything along those lines with the belief that a whole lot of British people weighed in to the last request to move RfC to keep 'Republic of Ireland' as the title because they don't like Ireland being used as the name of the state. I see no evidence to back up that belief, quite the reverse, but we're talking about feelings here and belief when the evidence is against one is some evidence for an emotional response. Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at the history of the term, you'll find one reason why it is regarded as an emotive term - "Republic of Ireland" is still the official name of the state under UK law. It is also (possibly) one of the reasons why media originating in the UK continue to use the term, and why it is used outside of the UK by people who consume this output. On the one hand, why shouldn't they use the term? It's *their* name for the state. But why should WP follow suit? --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should we let the British government dictate to us what titles we use/don't use here, in an article about Ireland on an international encyclopedia? This is a term that's widely used in Ireland, why should the fact that the British government uses it as well prevent us from using it? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I know the history. Would you please read Names_of_the_Irish_state#Belfast_Agreement. The countries now use each other's proper names in their laws. You seem to be stuck fighting a war that ended thirteen years ago. Dmcq (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll engage briefly here, but as we know, most of this has been said. Articles don't lay claim to titles, the titles of articles here are chosen by editors, and sometimes are poorly crowdsourced as with this one. Governments of individuals may lay claim to lands, and that situation (Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland) caused this title to be pointedly used against Ireland's objection by the UK, until about 2000 when the Foreign & Commonwealth Office relented using it. Now that situation is changed. My objections are fundamentally that common name, common sense and consistency are being ignored by this title. 'Consistency' there refers to article titles and lists, such as the many I have shown: naturally, lists which talk about states go: France, Germany, Italy, Austria, United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland, Spain, Greece, United States, Japan, Vietnam, China, Brazil... you get the idea. If it has to be disambiguated, which for sake of argument I'll grant here, "Ireland (state)" is natural. RoI is a tertiary dab: "the Republic" is more common in modern local accounts. Foreign writing, outside of the UK, in my experience, assumes Ireland means the 26 county area.

Regarding the term British Isles, that is outside the scope here. I don't have any desire to change that title, it is as that EU page states a "geographic area", although I feel that within decades its use will decline. Personally, I do not use the term. It is interesting to you, but to mention it as you did only ties RoI to the BI debates, they are not the same so I'll ask that you ignore that here and discuss only the state article. Sswonk (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Lugnad and (by extension) HighKing, you say, "Having said that there are instances where disambiguation is required and terms such as RoI, Irish Republic and others are appropriate." That's exactly what I think. But surely the page title is the most obvious such instance of all? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR ... What there is no getting away from the fact, that no new arguments have been forthcoming for any change to the status quo, a status quo that has the support of an overwhelming majority of editors. With the level of acceptance for the article being called Republic of Ireland, I can not see ANY circumstances in which a poll or whatever can be had without it being an option and any editor who feels that have a right to veto any option is clearly not working in a collaborative fashion. BTW I am still awaiting that list of editors who feel offended by the current articles name. Mtking ^(edits) 20:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The point about the name being pushed by Britain would be a reason to avoid it if it were still true as it would show it was point of view. However they stopped doing that years ago as part of the Belfast agreement. Same as Ireland now refers to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

By the way I'd prefer less bolding please, and I don't think capitals help either. I believe they just raise the temperature without casting any extra light. Dmcq (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nine years could be described as "Too Long Bad Title", but I choose not to insult people with TLBT as my position. How about this, everyone: If it is too FUCKING long for your patience, if it tires you to read actual discourse of any significant detail on this, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I have had it with these idiotic statements of boredom. It is rude, uncivil and pointless and editors who continue to use "TLDR" are nothing but an annoyance and trolls for leaving such dismissive, childish and useless bluelinks on this page. Enough, please refrain from commenting on the length of discussion. Sswonk (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to a troll with shouting is counter-productive and if they are not trolls one shouldn't shout as it is uncivil. I answered the point of substance there which is they saw no way in which a common name could be excluded from the options. Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"No, you don't have any right to hide valid comments from other people, even if they begin with a dismissive remark." Thus, dismissive comments are valid, no? Same as yours, so they must be substantial, but mine are not so they stay hidden? Unhide it all if anything. Claiming TLDR is rude and childish nonsense, and I am not standing for it and if I see it again, the entire block gets removed as trolling. Entertainment here. Sswonk (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think dismissive comments are a good idea, and by substantive points I mean points relating to the argument and not points about TLDR, regarding which the header on your collapse bar clearly expressed your views. Though I think it would be helpful if contributions in general were succinct and in a calm tone. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I was the first to respond to Sswonk with TLDR here, but that was for an essay of nearly 1,000 words. I never dreamt that it would become a fashion and I regret starting that fashion. It's rude and it's unhelpful. Sswonk's contributions now are no longer than other people's, including my own, and they are more reasonable than some. It's time we all learned some manners. Scolaire (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Scolaire. I hope that will do some good. Bastun will appreciate that the use of tl;dr is also part of a conspiracy. You may not have recognized this in your initial usage. Jimbo has hinted that he generally supports sending people to tl;dr reformatory, see here where he uses it while cutely ignoring admin Beeblebrox's confession to having dragged banned users "behind a horsecart for at least a furlong." I tell you, that's how it starts. Gotta go, I hear a clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop and it's getting closer. Sswonk (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My use of WP:TLDR was NOT directed at any one person, it was out of frustration at the same old reasons being trotted out all the time wasting huge number of bites without moving the debate forward. I have no axe to grind here with either side, if some one can come up with a naming scheme that works better than Ireland for the island and Republic of Ireland for the state then I will support it. But for me anything that would mean that either one would always need to be piped linked should be avoided if an alternative exists. If the project was to concentrate on that rather then talking about polls without this or that and accept the only way we can move this to a resolution is by ruling nothing in and nothing out the more likely we are to find a solution. Mtking ^(edits) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So propose a solution. RashersTierney (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have one, not sure one exists but willing to help find one. Mtking ^(edits) 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I felt that you were using it in response to the entire thread, but I stand by my rant against using it. Regarding moving forward, assuming moving the article title only, [[Republic of Ireland]] would not need to be piped, it would redirect to [[Ireland (state)]]. [[Ireland]] stands as is. The piping would be changed on the IMOS directive, [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] would then be [[Ireland (state)|]], using the pipe trick. Sswonk (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

While it works as a "political" fix I am not as yet seeing the the advantages to WP of that proposal it takes a a likely search term Republic of Ireland and replaces is it with a unlikely one, making it harder for persons outside of that part of the world to get to the page. Mtking ^(edits) 01:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirects make the search results for either "Republic of Ireland" or "Ireland (state)" go to the same article. Go to http://www.wikipedia.org, type either, with or without quotes, and click the arrow. Each of those searches goes to the same place and that would not change. Searching just the word "Ireland" would also not change, it would reach the same result as currently. The advantage is in replacing the more contentious, less commonly used title term with one that uses the official, most common name of the state as its primary focus. Sswonk (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Lads, you are alone in this argument, in this little private space of wikipedia. Most Irish people, myself included, have moved on from Wikipedia, especially this argument about "Ireland versus Ireland". It is nonsense. It is common usage (in the real world) to use one Ireland and allow for a separate administration in Northern Ireland. When I see this argument of "Ireland versus Ireland" and the perennial one regarding a successful Irishman being British, or an Anglo-Irish or Irish Born: Anything but an Irishman. It makes me sick. It appears that more time goes into the arguments regarding Ireland and the nationality of Irishmen than improving wikipedia. Please forget your internal private polls and never-ending arguments. Just merge the two "Ireland" pages and see what happens. Just go with what is common usage in the real world. 124.169.49.130 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What you say is in fact part of the problem with disambiguating. The commoner usage is the whole island and people aren't so interested in the state. However we can't at all reasonably say Dublin is the capital when talking about the whole island, that's simply not on. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. We can use a soft approach and say in an article titled "Ireland." "It has two capitals; Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, and Dublin." An accompanying map can easily show the two cities. 124.169.49.130 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a social forum for the editors, it is an encyclopaedia for its readers. The articles are on different topics, a reader wouldn't expect it all to be mixed up into one huge article. As far as our readers are concerned what happens on this page does not matter at all. And of the editors here even I'd be very surprised if any of them loses sleep over it. So no, changing the articles to avoid disagreements amongst editors is not a priority. The disagreements may however show ways to improve the encyclopaedia and that's what important. Dmcq (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article is misleading, not withstanding all the ifs and and buts in the lead. From that point of view it is not encyclopaedic. However, the point has been made ad infinitum and blithely ignored as marginal, technically insoluble, irrelevant, unreasonable and any other number of dismissive and smug characterisations. That is why this page is seen by so many, who have tried over years to reach a new consensus, as irrelevant and irritating and generally avoided. RashersTierney (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Two possible solutions

I am pleased to see that discussion has turned towards this at last. I believe that there are two possible solutions. The current situation is this:

• Current situation: A disambiguation page at Ireland (disambiguation). The island at Ireland. The state at Republic of Ireland.

But this hasn't stopped the argument. I propose that we look at adopting one of these two options, either on our own (if we can grasp that nettle) or by offering the choice to the wider community:

• Option A: A disambiguation page at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).
• Option B: A disambiguation page at Ireland (disambiguation). The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state).

I happen to prefer Option A, because it seems the more neutral of the two, but I could live with Option B as it too avoids the impasse caused by the current situation. -- Evertype·✆ 11:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This debate reminds me of those referendums you sometimes have in Ireland (and in Denmark I think). You know, the ones where you have to keep voting until you get the "right" answer. Van Speijk (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the upside is we eventually get it 'right' ;- ) RashersTierney (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this method only works with irreversible decisions. Hans Adler 23:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What happen to option C? GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It was inadvertently removed when turned it into a poll with this edit, I have reinstated it. Mtking ^(edits) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's would be alright if this was only a poll to decide which name to choose if the articles were moved. But, I gather this Poll was simply to 'move' the articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The poll is about Options A and B. Some people wish to register their preference for Republic of Ireland and are writing in an Option C. That is not what the poll is about. We know that some people like Republic of Ireland. The problem is that this title causes no end of strife. -- Evertype·✆ 00:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If A or B is the choice of this poll? what happens next? GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

I have now edited this to look like a straw poll. If you dislike the way I edited something you wrote, please revise it. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Option C: Leave it alone. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I like the 'But this hasn't stopped the argument'. I wasn't holding the vase and it fell. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Either A or B EC - Either A or B would address the issue from my point of view. Tend more towards A. Sincerely hope we aren't presented with a plethora of 'helpful' alternatives. RashersTierney (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I do think that we need to avoid the pick 1 from x route, we need to as a project work on a proposal with the aim of a wiki-wide RfC in the form of a simple "Do you support changing the name of 'Article X' to 'abc'" and see if there is a consensus to support that change. Mtking ^(edits) 23:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not A, maybe B I strongly object to A. I think B is much inferior to, and less reader- (as opposed to editor-) friendly than the current situation, but if adopting it is going to give us a stable situation where everyone can get on with editing in peace, I'd be willing to accept it. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The welcome comments by Dcmq and Rashers Tierney above may indicate that there is some merit to the point that the common usage of "Ireland" today refers to one Ireland. There is the Ireland of; the Rugby team, the Chartered Accountants, the Golfing Union of Ireland. 25,000 Irish people attended the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. 20,000 Irish people are members of Chartered Accountants Ireland. Over 20,000 Irish people are members of the Golfing Union of Ireland. There are more, many more, in organisations throughout Ireland. These all reflect that in the real world today it is normal to refer to one Ireland. In this reference to one Ireland it incorporates the separate administrations in Belfast and Dublin. An accompanying map can easily show the two administration areas. Wikipedia is best served as an encyclopaedia that reflects the real world and may be best served by one inclusive article on "Ireland". Saturday. 124.169.49.130 (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And there are separate aricles about those organizations because they are separate topics. It is just not sensible to have an article about the Golfing union and not have articles on the separate administrations. We have articles on topics like County Kerry for instance. They are all highly notable topics. Going your way we'd have to have just one humongous article about the British Isles to solve other problems. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging the articles was one of six options in a 2009 poll. It attracted by far the fewest number of votes. The discussions since September this year shows that it still has minimal support. I think it would be good to close off this cul-de-sac now. There are two proposals under discussion. Scolaire (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Option B: A straight move of ROI to Ireland (state). This has been and remains the only proposal that people on both sides have said they could live with, or that they would not oppose in certain circumstances. In the current round of discussions the following editors have said that they could support it or wouldn't oppose it. I give dates and times in UTC and I give permission to anybody to replace those with actual diffs:
  • Valenciano 15:09, 20 September 2011
  • Sswonk 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Evertype 17:28, 22 September 2011
  • RA 09:33, 19 September 2011
  • Dmcq 08:33, 12 October 2011 (NB incorrectly attributes the view to Bastun)
  • ComhairleContaeThirnanOg 14:35, 12 October 2011
  • Kauffner 04:53, 19 October 2011 (sorta)
  • Evertype 11:44, 17 October 2011
  • Sam Blacketer 10:46, 19 October 2011
  • GoodDay 02:36, 19 October 2011
  • BritishWatcher 17:59, 21 October 2011
  • RashersTierney 12:08, 19 November 2011
  • ComhairleContaeThirnanOg 12:46, 19 November 2011
  • --Red King (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition to these comments from this year, the proposal gained a lot of cross-party support in December 2008, when it became known as the "Mooretwin proposal". The vote can be seen here (21 "supports" including "conditional", "cautious" etc.). --Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? I note that your name does not appear in this list. Come off the fence, already. Divulge your view. Sheesh. -- Evertype·✆ 01:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to Scoláire's very angry post in my talk page I would like to say is that while he may think that he has given his "explicit support to one of the two options" I proposed, I don't see such explicit support in the posting above. What I see is a list of other people's names (including mine, twice). I don't see Scoláire saying explicitly "I support Option B". That's why I said to him "Divulge your view." If that is his view, I would be glad for him to actually state so in so many words. -- Evertype·✆ 14:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In a straw poll where two options - numbered, bolded and asterisked - are offered, "*Option B" means "I support option B". That is hardly rocket science. Any sane person, in the light of your ignorant response, would strike through that support and change to "oppose all options". I will not. Scolaire (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me that you were "voting" in a straw poll. It looked as though you were just discussing the option. If that makes me ignorant enough for you to call me ignorant, so be it. Thank you for clarifying that you support Option B. I'm sorry that my ignorance cause me to write things at which you took offence. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well my support of B is more of the 'I'll give you a stroke' kind. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Option B: as the most straightforward and like Scolaire says above, one that has had support in the past. --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Option C for the time, I do think Option B MAY be worth looking at, but there are some other issues that need to be ironed out before it could be put to a wiki wide discussion. Mtking ^(edits) 20:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? What "issues"? The issue here is that Republic of Ireland as the article title does not foster a collaborative environment for WikiProject Ireland. It fosters nothing but the kind of arguments we have had for nearly a decade. This Option C as you call it has been in force for two years, and that period of "stability" has solved nothing. -- Evertype·✆ 20:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well for starters how does it fit into existing policy, how is it going to make the situation stable, does it come with another lock in period, is it going to lead to mass editing of articles to enforce and if it is, is that acceptable and if not what steps should be taken to avoid. Just to list a few off the top of my head. I would be happy to see the Project work on Option B (Option A I think is a non starter) to see if it can be formulated into a clear and concise proposal with a view to the a wiki-wide support/oppose RFC. Mtking ^(edits) 23:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is late and I am going to bed. But to answer: (1) "Existing policy" is a broad canvas and I don't know quite what you refer to. The article Republic of Ireland would be re-named to Ireland (state). (2) Yes, I would propose it to come with a two-year lockdown period. It is my belief that this choice would lead to the kind of stability WikiProject Ireland lacks. (3) If the article name were changed, then yes, many articles would have to be edited. All would pipe to the new article title. Article text might remain "Republic of Ireland" in some cases, or be changed to "Ireland" or "the Republic" in other cases, depending on specific context. -- Evertype·✆ 00:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Option C - to be clear, I would support a move so long as it was policy driven rather than personal preference driven. I haven't got a problem with the status quo, except that I think it may breach both WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:NDESC. However that the current proponents of a move do not suggest any policy breaches leaves me in a difficult position. I reject A and B as not following article naming policies. Fmph (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia "policy" is nothing more than a guideline and every one of them can be overridden if there is a suitable reason to do so. I have already suggested that the truth value of arguments either for or against the use of Republic of Ireland is irrelevant since the name itself is controversial to (at least) some editors. People who think that Republic of Ireland is a suitable title cannot win the argument and convince people who think it is unsuitable that it is suitable. And people who think that Republic of Ireland is an unsuitable title cannot win the argument and convince people who think it is suitable that it is unsuitable. This is a lose-lose situation that damages WikiProject Ireland. Now a formulation Irland (state) is already in use in other language versions of the Wikipedia: Franco-Provençal frp:Irlande (payis), Faroese fo:Írland (land), French fr:Irlande (pays), Latin la:Hibernia (res publica), Dutch nl:Ierland (land), Low Saxon nds-nl:Ierlaand (laand), Tagalog tl:Irlanda (bansa), and Zeelandic zea:Ierland (land). It is clear from this that this particular formulation is permitted on the Wikipedia and so is not a breach of article naming policies. (Note that all of those languages can formulate Irland for the name of the country as well as Republic of Ireland for the name of the country—but instead, they use the formula Ireland (state).) It is for this reason that I am asking everyone to think not of their own arguments about being right, but about a better editing environment for everyone in the WikiProject Ireland. The arguments about the "status quo" make us all look foolish, and those arguments will never go away. We have seen them for a decade. -- Evertype·✆ 20:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@Fmph, I strongly disagree that "the current proponents of a move do not suggest any policy breaches". I have written extensively about POV issues, about verifiability issues and about the outlier status of en.wikipedia.org versus reliably sourced external reference works with regard to the Ireland titling here. I abhor using bluelinks, they are misused constantly. Please forgive, but to give a hint here, the misapplication of policy with irrelevant bluelinks to what are in fact essays such as "IDONTLIKEIT" compels me to take the opposite road and avoid their use, on purpose. I hope you will reconsider. 'Republic of Ireland' as a title has been touted as a "solution", something that "works". I think the application of RoI at the end of a decision tree based on false logic and navel gazing over control of editor behaviour represents a form of original research, if that helps. Wikipedia is wrong on the title, it is in the minority and it should break out of the spell it has put itself under. Sswonk (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The basic principle I follow is what is best for what people read. There are loads of people who drag on old arguments on Wikipedia and they are a nuisance and do not help but that is more of a conduct issue. Instead of citing trouble here I would prefer people to cite issues that fall within the content policies. I see nothing in what Evertype wrote there that has any bearing on the issue as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Option C: Nothing has changed, leave it alone. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Options A, B or C. I'm content with either. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Option C, with Option B as second choice. Hans Adler 23:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Kommentar

I need clarification. The Poll seems to have been ment with only 2 options, now it's 3 options (or is it). Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be three. See above Mtking ^(edits) 00:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Okie, I changed the section heading to Three possible solutions, as Two.. was misleading. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The poll is about the two options A and B. C is not an option; C is the problem. -- Evertype·✆ 00:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I need further clarification: What happens if A oder B gets overwhelming support? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has a right of veto over any option. As for what happens, I would think it should be then put to a wiki-wide RfC to see if consensus exists to make the change.Mtking ^(edits) 00:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I just need to know, what'll happen if option A or B is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair question, and given WP:CONLIMITED, if the project can agree on an alternative proposal to the status quo the only reasonable route is a wiki-wide RfC to judge wider consensus. Mtking ^(edits) 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If A or B gets overwhelming support then we will know what level of change the members of IECOLL are prepared to consider. So far it appears that a change of only one article title is preferred (B rather than A). -- Evertype·✆ 00:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanna be certain, that there will not be an attempt to move articles, when this poll closes. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No unilateral action will be taken, if that is what you are wondering. It would take admin powers to make such a move anyway. -- Evertype·✆ 00:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've restored my vote, with the understanding that A oder B (the poll result) will be put up against C, in a wider poll. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"C" is the problem. "C" is what guts WikiProject Ireland. "C" is what makes people angry at each other. Why should we put out a poll which offers to retain "C"? (I would imagine that it would take the form of "Shall the article be moved to X" and then participants might say yea or nay. I would not imagine that it would take the form of "Which article name should be used?" But my intent is clearly to encourage everyone in IECOLL to bravely choose something new with the expectation that WikiProject Ireland will become a better place for us all to work together, without this millstone around our neck. Indeed, perhaps we can get everyone to agree without having to poll at all. (One can hope.) -- Evertype·✆ 00:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have much preferred if it had been left as Scolaire had it rather than being turned into a poll. He was investigating the degree of resistance to a move which was a worthwhile thing to find out. That last section isn't going to lead anywhere useful now. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It will if people are of good will and are prepared to consider ditching a problematic title for a title which does not have the same baggage. We all know that people satisfied with Republic of Ireland do not prefer to change. But that's not the problem. The problem is that keeping it there does not satisfy a number of editors, some of whom have quit WikiProject Ireland because of the ill will the argument has engendered over the years. "Grasping the nettle" isn't an easy thing to do, but I am asking IECOLL to do it, because nothing will ever get better in the WikiProject Ireland if this thorn is not taken out of its side. I hope everyone is sensible enough to see this. The thing which dampens my hopes is the comments of people who claim that there isn't a problem. If theire weren't a problem we wouldn't have this Collaboration subgroup. So let's collaborate, already. -- Evertype·✆ 00:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What I get out of it, is there is very little support for making any change to the article about the island, there is a some support for changing the article on the state, but more support for the status quo. Unless anything major changes in the !voteing pattens I don't think it is worth trying to formulate a proposal along the lines of Option B, as, to use a US political phrase, it is unlikely "to get of committee" Mtking ^(edits) 00:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

When the time comes, I'll be expecting a community wide poll concerning these 3 articles-in-queston. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not think we should recommend retention of the current article title, and it seems clear so far that "A" is very problematic for some. So why would we want to offer it as a choice? -- Evertype·✆ 00:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The whol community must have a say or such page moves will be highly disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A multiple-choice is a bad idea, the aim of this project should be to formulate a single proposal for any change (accepting that no-change is a possible outcome) then to see if the project supports that proposal being put to the wiki-at-large, this should not be seen as either supporting or rejecting the specifics of the proposal, just that the proposal should be considered. Mtking ^(edits) 01:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I would propose that we consider the option below as the only true and verifiable one.

• Option Ireland: To go with what is common usage in the real world, to use one "Ireland" and allow for a separate administration in Northern Ireland, to allow for two capitals Belfast and Dublin. This is best for wikipedia. To merge the two "Ireland" pages and see what happens. Which is more verifiable and common an "Ireland" or an "Ireland (state)"? 124.169.234.204 (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Nope. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, regarding your statement just above, "The whole community must have a say or such page moves will be highly disruptive." According to the arbcom tag on the talk pages of all these articles, this forum is where the whole community must go to move the pages. There are about twenty people who are interested enough to keep coming back here, whether they support the general tenor of discussion in the past two years or not. You are one of those twenty, I'm another. Evertype has come back after a long absence. In my opinion, he is making an admirable effort to bring us together to face the core issue of the damage this has done to the quality of WP:Ireland articles, photography, templates: activities. I am tremendously gratified that he is making this effort. I think what he wrote is one of the brightest things anyone here has said in months: "But my intent is clearly to encourage everyone in IECOLL to bravely choose something new with the expectation that WikiProject Ireland will become a better place for us all to work together, without this millstone around our neck." If this core group can finally collaborate and move forward, with a single, multi-partisan, agreed upon title, the community would be quite gratified as well I think. The alternative, yet more RMs and votes and talk of more yearly discussion gags, is basically continued disruption. It disrupts the collaborative spirit by turning everything into competition and enforcement. In the Evertype scenario, this group might actually solve this and present Arbcom one day with a real, collaborative solution. I don't foresee arbcom or the community rejecting true collaborative effort. See this as an opportunity to participate in ending a stalemate and forging a stronger community better suited to truly covering Irish topics. Sswonk (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of user:Sswonk

Editors here should note that I have had cause to give user:Sswonk a formal warning for coming very close to seriously inappropriate comments at Sarah777's talk page with regards to the discussion on this page that, among other things, violated the spirit of WP:CANVASS. permalink. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see anything "seriously inappropriate" in those comments, nor do I find any canvassing there. I believe Sswonk's characterization of Sarah777's view is accurate, and I see him simply asking her to confirm it, in response to a query by Dmcq. I think Thryduulf's "formal warning" is inappropriate, and I think he owes Sswonk an apology. -- Evertype·✆ 14:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see user talk:Sswonk for further discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate that a warning has been necessary. Sswonk is obviously emotionally involved with this dispute more than most, and comments such as the one on Sarah's talk page are born of frustration rather than malice. However, this must serve as due notice to all contributors here that emotion or frustration (which many if not all of us suffer from) cannot and will not be accepted as an excuse for incivility or disruptive behaviour. We all need to tone down the language. Scolaire (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's "disruptive" to defend against lies about my purpose, and lies about John's advice? Sarah's mentor John wrote "I don't see any problem if you have a strong view on the question, in describing your view here or at my talk." How could my asking her to simply confirm in a single sentence, on her page, that she disapproves the title, be construed as Thryduulf does? How is it "seriously inappropriate"..."violat(ing) the spirit of WP:CANVASS"... and most affronting "tempting Sarah to go against the advice of her mentor"? Those are utter lies, and this guy should have no business doing that to people. He is a liar, and is attacking me. I am not putting up with it. That is what is "disruptive", end of. Sswonk (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk, when I said "I think it is unfortunate that a warning has been necessary" I meant that I sympathise with you. But if you go around calling people liars, then I find myself less sympathetic. At all events, your case at AN/I is not directly relevant to IECOLL. Let's keep it at AN/I and keep the focus on civility and respect on this page. Scolaire (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I understood that you sympathise. Getting true meaning across is difficult when typing in a monospaced font rather than having eye contact and hearing vocal tone. I asked you all those questions because I understood you sympathised. I wanted it made clear that frustration "will not be accepted as an excuse for incivility or disruptive behaviour" couldn't mean me, since it was the "warning" party throwing notices on my page, then planting his flag on this page and proposing "remedies" at other forums, who was truly being disruptive. I didn't feel your remark made that clear. As for not calling deliberate, obvious untruthfulness what it is, you've got the wrong person. A lie is a lie, none of the three things I quoted to you that were written by Thryduulf are true, they are lies. What I am supposed to do, praise him? These people do not deserve the power of threat that they possess, and they are definitely part of the problem with this entire situation. I know if she feels anything at all like me, Sarah is disgusted with this website in general precisely because it has "hired", and offers as examples, administrators like that. The system is rotten. I refuse to discuss this any further, Thryduulf is the one who should be held responsible for being "disruptive", and I don't want anyone reading what you wrote to believe otherwise. Sswonk (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

@Sswonk, because if you had asked her to express her view rather than confirm it, it might have been less like canvassing. But you would also need to have asked more than just Sarah to come and express their view.Fmph (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq asked her to confirm what I suggested. I was not canvassing, that is absurd. I was trying to get an answer for Dmcq, as you can see he has taken her response as not being a confirmation. I did not ask "Sarah to come and express (her) view", I asked that she confirm in one sentence what I wrote. Sarah has been a polarizing figure here, but she is a very obvious answer to the question "who is unhappy?" that Dmcq asked. She should not be compelled to come here, why would you think that is what I meant? An irresponsible false charge of "canvassing" was thrown at me, trust me rather than be disruptive or canvassing my intent was to have Dmcq get a confirmation, which would substantiate my statements that this forum has become problematic for several editors. The suggestion was that Sarah confirm on her page what I had just written on her page. Instead, Typhoon Thryduulf paid a visit, writing a pack of horseshit where Sarah's response could have gone. Not here, on her page. She writes that, Dmcq gets one answer, I get substantiation for what I have written. No hypothetical "if you had asked her to..." needed, I know what I was doing and it wasn't the garbage that has since been said about it. Sswonk (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)