Talk:Ireland (disambiguation): Difference between revisions
imported>Peter Jackson |
imported>Mal McKee |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
:::::That just shows you who's been winning the wars. Remember the old saying: "Justice must not only be done, it must be ''seen'' to be done." I think it's desirable for us to avoid even the ''appearance'' of bias. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC) | :::::That just shows you who's been winning the wars. Remember the old saying: "Justice must not only be done, it must be ''seen'' to be done." I think it's desirable for us to avoid even the ''appearance'' of bias. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::::: Peter, I'd love to know what you mean by this. How does "justice" relate in any way to my suggestion? I don't think that the consensus on that particular small part of the ongoing 'war' in Wikipedia is an example of any particular faction having "won" anything. --[[User:Mal McKee|Mal McKee]] 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:09, 22 February 2011
Disambiguation page
I'm currently working on articles for Ireland (the country) and Ireland (the island) (drafts on my sandbox, links from my userpage). I may also get started on Northern Ireland. The general intention, in order to avoid repetition, would be to keep things like geography, geology, climate, flora and fauna, etc., on the Ireland (the island) article - possibly also the ancient history. Then the country article(s) would contain politics, economy, culture, (recent) history, etc.
Note that the actual article titles haven't been decided upon yet. To forestall the endless circular arguments found elsewhere, my intention would be to have the issue discussed and agreed before actually setting up the articles proper. Anton Sweeney 08:27, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
- Good thinking, Anton.
- I think you should combine the country and island articles (since it's a bit arbitrary to hive off the twiddly bits of the Irish Archipelago like Sceilig Mhichíl, Rathlin, Blasket, Saltee, Aran, etc, islands) and you should be able to get to at least 1731 before serious dissension occurs. Obviously by the third decade of the nineteenth century you will need at least two articles to discuss the various state entities. Despite the recent shortening of the Dublin state entity's official title, I am sure you will be able to distinguish the articles about the whole island country of Ireland (even Dr Paisley replied that he was unambiguously an Irishman when I asked him in 1993) from those articles dealing with the various states.
- Do you intend to include the Irish kingdoms across the water (like Strathclyde) in your ancient history? W. Frank 09:56, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
The question here isn't just what the titles should be, but how the whole topic of Ireland should be divided up. I'd like to leave that in the hands of the Irish--preferably, Irish Studies people, but actual Irish people would do in a pinch. I imagine that we might have articles about the geography of Ireland that cover all the Irish islands; a history article called something like history of Ireland to 1731, and then later installments based on political entities; one big history of Ireland article that covers the whole island (why not?); I think Ireland itself should be a brief discussion of what can be found on the island, politically, historically, geographically, and otherwise, but mainly with pointers to Eire or Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. In the latter case, I'm not sure we actually need a disambiguation page at all. There are many questions involved here. We should take them up one at a time. --Larry Sanger 23:41, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Naming Irish articles
Editor in Chief, Larry Sanger just used the edit summary of "(Rendering anticipated names consistent with CZ:Naming Conventions)" when changing the title of "Ireland, Republic of" to "Republic of Ireland" and "Ireland, Island of" to "Ireland (island).
However, I think he is wrong on one reading of the reference he provided: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Naming_Conventions#Typographical_and_stylistic_rules which currently emboldens: "put keywords first"
Since we can safely envision more than three Ireland articles developing over the course of time I would respectfully suggest that this reference encourages a series of articles named after this pattern:
- Ireland, Republic of
- Ireland, Southern (interim state in 1922)
- Ireland, Rugby in
- Ireland, prehistory
- Ireland, missionaries from
- Ireland, writers from
- Ireland, traditional sports etc, etc
W. Frank 18:18, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
- The main problem I see there is with the first one - "Ireland, Republic of". The Irish Constitution says "Article 4: The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."[1] The description of the state, according to the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, is the "Republic of Ireland" [2]. (Note: W. Frank has mentioned that this has changed, but I didn't manage to find a reference to the change today). Now, on WP, there have been pages and pages of arguments, polls, etc., about where articles should reside - currently, over there,
- "Republic of Ireland" is the article on the state, Ireland;
- "Ireland" is the article on the island as a whole;
- "Ireland (disambiguation)" is (obviously) a disambiguation page linking to both the above, plus "Northern Ireland", plus former political entities on the island, people with Ireland as a surname, etc.
- The gist of the argument is that the article on the state should not have to reside at a page named after its description, rather than its proper name. The prevailing consensus is that it would be too much trouble to move pages around and that things work fine as they are. However, every so often, someone kicks off the debate again...
- Here at CZ, we have the opportunity to do things right from the start. My initial idea is that we should have:
- Ireland - a disambiguation page, linking to:
- Ireland - the island;
- Ireland - the state;
primarily in order to forestall such interminable recurring arguments.
- I'm open as to what the actual names of the articles are, though for the reasons stated, I do think calling the article on the state either "Ireland, Republic of" or "Republic of Ireland" would be a mistake.
- At this stage of CZ's life - I'm wondering is this the correct place to have this debate, or should it be in a more "central" location such as the Geography forum, or CZ:Geography Workgroup? Regards, Anton Sweeney 18:57, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
The rule you found was articulated by a new arrival to Citizendium who has made that rule as a proposal. I disagree with it, and I've removed it, pending a discussion by the Editorial Council.
I do agree that a more central location such as the Geography forum would be more appropriate. --Larry Sanger 20:25, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Discussion started here. Anton Sweeney 04:17, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Disambiguation
Wouldn't it be better for this page to be located at Ireland (disambiguation) or something similar and for Ireland (state) to be located at Ireland? After all, most people who type "Ireland" into their web browser are probably looking for the country. William Niday 09:43, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
- But many will instead be looking for the island. Possibly this article should be located at Ireland (disambiguation) - but with Ireland redirecting to it. "Ireland" is both the name of one state on the island, and of the island itself. When I set up the pages as I did, it was mainly to avoid the protracted discussions over this issue which take place on Wikipedia, and which never seem to die off for long. Anton Sweeney 10:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Proposal
I would suggest that we keep this disambiguation page, but re-use the article Ireland as a conatiner name for the island. The name the Republic declared as a description of that country (ie "Ireland") is relatively new (1937). Historically, however, the island has been known by the name "Ireland" for far longer.
As an example of what I mean, I had occasion just now to look at the article on James Tytler (I had never heard of him before), and I noticed that the man had "fled to Ireland". Given that the man was apparently a contemporary of Robert Burns, he wouldn't have fled to the Republic of Ireland, as it was yet to come to be. Whoever edited the article didn't disambiguate however, and anyone clicking on the blue link would be directed to this disambiguation page.
Ireland, for most of Tytler's life, was a kingdom, and at the end of his life was an integral part of the United Kingdom, having been joined in union just prior to his death. It is my suspicion that this will be the most common use of the link Ireland by editors referring to the region, and that the link should therefore contain a description of the island as a whole.
Ireland (island) should therefore, to avoid duplication, redirect to Ireland. --Mal McKee 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- While the boundaries obviously are controversial, I've found it useful, as a parallel, to have both Israel and State of Israel. This is something I've done for several other countries. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- So a precedent has already been set then, Howard. Perhaps another couple of views on the matter would be useful before we resolve to make any changes. --Mal McKee 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to avoid such controversial actions, just keep disambiguation. Just look at all the endless wars on Wikipedia on this subject. Peter Jackson 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not interested in wars or even the discussion of wars on other sites, Peter. I'm simply proposing this as being the most logical solution to stop blue links directing to a disambiguation page. I can't see anyone here having any kind of problem with it.
- In fact, having just checked Wikipedia, it seems they are doing what I have proposed with regard to their article. They have the article on Ireland, which is about the historic and geographic region, and they have a disambiguation article for the various meanings and contexts of Ireland.--Mal McKee 21:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- That just shows you who's been winning the wars. Remember the old saying: "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." I think it's desirable for us to avoid even the appearance of bias. Peter Jackson 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Peter, I'd love to know what you mean by this. How does "justice" relate in any way to my suggestion? I don't think that the consensus on that particular small part of the ongoing 'war' in Wikipedia is an example of any particular faction having "won" anything. --Mal McKee 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)