Wikipedia:Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive07

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Traditional counties box

There have been some changes to this recently. Originally just the traditional 32 counties, the new county areas in Dublin have been added. I disagree with this, as though they are on a par with other county areas (User:Djegan's argument for the change), they are not part of the traditional county series. I wish to keep the two distinct. What do people here think? zoney ♣ talk 15:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Djegan:

I disagree with putting the new administrative regions in this box. It is clearly for the traditional counties.

After all, by the same logic one would need to add all the NI administrative regions/new counties.

zoney ♣ talk 01:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They (the "new counties") are not "adminstrative regions" but rather "counties", cf: Local Government Act, 2001. As for Northern Ireland like much of United Kingdom boundaries they a quazi-defined. The Republic of Ireland is a 26+5 county republic! Djegan 01:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These new "counties" are on a par with other Council areas. These are not the same thing as the traditional counties, e.g. the Limerick County Council area doesn't include Limerick city, but County Limerick does include the city.

I consider it important to retain the distinction of the traditional and modern counties. County Dublin, County Tipperary should be part of the traditional county series, but I suggest the issue could be solved by creating a new series, with articles on each of the county council areas (in essence that's what North and South Tipperary articles are, as the main county info is at County Tipperary), including the existing new county areas.

I apologise for the blunt reverting (it was only 5 articles though), but it's a fairly major change to the status quo.

zoney ♣ talk 01:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lets keep two clear tiers of local government in Ireland, cities and counties - but should the "new cities" of the NI be placed in a separate table as well? no, just use the existing tables to explain the situation in Ireland simiply.

All in all local government in-so-far as cities and counties in ROI is extremely straight forward. Irish cities, unlike their UK or NI counterparts continously change boundaries as need arises, taking part of the adminstrative counties, thus Dublin city is without doubt one of the largest cities in the British Isles (or whatever else you might like to call it), by area. I recently read an article that it is proposed that City of Limerick will expand into County Clare, obviously this will not become part of County Limerick - cities are ultimately distinct areas from counties in the ROI - I accept that the simplfied version is otherwise as you articulated above with regard to Limerick.

Similarily Northern cities and counties have a variety of meaning (district, city, county,...), trying to compare the ROI and NI is not possible. Don't make more tables than neccessary, tables can give summaries, articles can give details on particulars. The reason why I have depreciated the Dublin template is because it is largly meaningless and overcomplicates things for those who understand little of the detail. If you don't think i am right go to Counties of England and try and make sense of it.

I don not want to overcomplicate it, but rather reduce uneccessary and obsolete tables.

Djegan 02:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe that tha counties box should hve room for both traditional and new counties as a "Counties of Ireland" box, not a "Traditional counties of Ireland" box - the former is more than articulated in Counties of Ireland. Ultimately local government in NI is based on districts which moreoften do not have the same boundaries as counties - thus as I found by communication with the NI statistics agencies they compile no results on a county basis and not since the early 1970s. In NI the counties which are unofficial for all legal purposes and are only used for Lieutenancy. The "new counties" of the ROI are bona-fide counties as the link to the local government act will show above - and should be included - the average person who visits wikipedia will hardly be confused by the discreet terms "traditional" and "new" - and it shows a comprehensive list that any summary should have. Perhaps the issue can be resolved by appropriate "traditional county" and "new county" categories in addition? - their is simply no getting away from the fact that the "new counties" (as I call them) are counties. Djegan 15:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the change was made "recently"; it was some months ago. The box used to describe both the political counties (which are facts) as well as the traditional countries. Now it's been changed, and reduced in utility, to be just the traditional countries. I think it should be 'reverted to the more inclusive version, which is more useful. If someone wants to find information about County Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, why not be able to find it in the counties box? And to those who want to maintain a distinction between the traditional and "new" counties, this is achieved easily by the use of parentheses. (You know, this tinkering and that of the county maps proposed below isn't helping improve Irish articles. It's just tinkering. We should be working on filling out the town articles and so on.) Evertype 08:00, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

The map work is my own ongoing project - I created new maps for the city articles (which WERE necessary aesthetically - go see history if you don't believe me). Following this I created maps for the other counties in the same fashion. I finished it by stitching them together to create this new more detailed map of Ireland (with county divisions).

You may say that it's "tinkering", but it is necessary to have some measure of consistency and organisation in an encyclopaedia. Ideally there should be two boxes for two different series of articles. One box for the 32 traditional county articles (what other series do County Tipperary, County Dublin and the six Northern counties fit in?), and a ROI box with the admin counties in the Republic (to accommodate the "new" counties on par with the unaltered ROI county areas).

zoney ♣ talk 21:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of towns in the Republic of Ireland

I'd like to add entries for the towns in the Aran Islands. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm still unfamiliar with the technicalities of the work. Writing up the towns will be no problem, but such things as "updating links" or "disambig pages" are still a mystery to me. Does anyone have any suggestions as to 1) whether my efforts would be worthwhile, 2) what ancilliary tasks I should do in relation to the information I add? --Aranman 15:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What towns are those? Evertype 15:58, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Included are Kilronan, Kilmurvey, Bun Gowla, Gort na gCapall, Killeany on the big island,Inis Mor.Aranman 02:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A good way to lean is to start by using another page as a template.

First, create a new section in the Aran islands topic and list the towns in it. Like this:

Villages of Aran

Inis Mór has distinct villages: Kilronan (the largest), Kilmurvey, Bun Gowla, Gort na gCapall, Killeany

and save the new version. (actually you could use this page as a starting point and add back to the real Aran article when you are happy with them.)

Next, copy outright an article for an existing town, Roundstone for instance. Start as if to edit it, copy the editable text to memory, and then exit without saving. Go back to the Aran Islands article, and click on Kilrona, which will be underlined in red. Wiki will tell you that the page doesn't exist and invite you to make one, offering you a blank canvas. Paste your copy of the Roundstone text into it, then change the contents to Kilronan and its information. Keep using preview until you are happy. Don't worry if it goes all wrong! Just keep trying. If all else fails, one of us will help you sort it out.

Slane Concert

Does anyone know the lineups for different years? I cant find it anywhere on the Internet. I remember the last 2 years personally, but I made an artical about the concert, and I want the full lineups for each year. I have most of the headliners. Slane Concert

I've added a bit for 1984 from memory. Filiocht 13:53, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cities of the Republic of Ireland

It is my intension (when wiki is more stable) to remove some of the material from the main city articles and to place them in subsiduary articles, for instance images, people and history where it is not already created as some articles have started to become list and gallery intensive - any suggests are welcome. Djegan 20:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good, I agree fully that the city articles need some real work and at present consist largely of ugly lists and galleries. I probably wo'nt be able to help you much, im focusing on wikinews for the moment (if you've a chance please write a wikinews article! we need more editors!) regardless, good luck - its a big enough task. CGorman 21:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would focus on just those specific sections that need summarised - if possible, it's fine having unsummarised sections when the city article is not too long (thinking of Cork for example - it's not really too long, the history or buildings sections don't need summarised until more content is added to the main article).

I think CGorman is being a bit harsh tarring all the city articles with the same brush. The only ones in serious need of attention are Galway (ragged and imbalanced) and Dublin (too long/some sections too long, the section on Dublin infrastructure could be split off and summarised). Waterford and Kilkenny are still in their infancy - the existing sections need only be summarised when the articles expand (other sections added). The less said about the Northern cities the better - a pity there doesn't seem to be more Northern collaborators here.

I might be a slight bit biased, but I think Limerick is a good article! Seriously, if you still think the city articles are *generally* poor - look at each of them again. I say that out of the Republic's cities, only Galway and Dublin need immediate attention.

zoney ♣ talk 10:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am going to concentrate on lists and galleries as these are my main concern. Having lists of people who have been born, died and did the hokey-pokey in a particular city just inflates articles with trivia - give these lists their own articles. Also Dublins article is full of photographs which make it look like a brochure and now that the article is more substantial it is appropriate that some of these pictures are also placed in an appropriate separate article. Again with Limerick the text is fine but the lists of people needs independence. Creating subsiduary articles should not be an automatic thing but rather something that is done after considering if the main article warrants it because of lenght or complexity. Djegan 13:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I admit a list is awkward for an article, and it can keep growing. Perhaps if we ensured some of the more note-worthy individuals were mentioned in the body of the article. In the case of Limerick, certainly it should be noted as DeValera's birthplace, and probably Pat Cox should be mentioned. Terry Wogan and Dolores O'Riordan/Cranberries could be mentioned in culture section. This is only looking at Limerick - the same applies elsewhere. I hadn't previously noted Limerick having a list too - it's quite short and tidy at present.

The "gallery" on Dublin really is excessive - though I have been loath to tackle it! Could an Architecture of Dublin page be started (akin to Architecture of Limerick)?

zoney ♣ talk 13:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've had a first cut at a spring clean of Galway. Please peer review.--Red King 20:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New maps

Hi all,

I'm working on new more detailed county maps. Compare County Kerry map below. Should I change anything. I've gone with not highlighting Northern Ireland as the map shows the "traditional" counties, which NI doesn't even use. It's an apolitical purely geographic map.

Thoughts? (Before I go off do another 31 and change 32 articles)

zoney ♣ talk 23:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a purely geographic system is warranted, that new map is quite impressive and a lot more accurate and flexiable for future use - the old maps while quite useful has had particular ideosyncracies - the coastal cities and towns been either inland or out-to-sea more than they should and the north-south divide which is inappropriate because of the political status of counties. Also a new naming scheme is warranted - as the present scheme is north-south based and theirfore inappriate.
Djegan 23:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll go ahead with this, probably at the weekend then. I plan to do the 32 county pages. We already have the individual county maps (with the Ireland map in the corner) and I intend to redo the province maps, and perhaps get maps of the constituencies from somewhere (any suggestions? Even a rough idea will do, as it's only the subdivisions that need drawn in)

zoney ♣ talk 00:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I object to this rather strongly. In the first place it changes a Wikipedia convention for regional map colouring. Compare Isfahan (province). In the second place, it claims to be "apolitical" and "geographic" but NONE of the county divisions are geographic; they are all social or administrative, .i. manmade boundaries. (That is, the rationale that this is apolitical is bollocks; there is NOTHING wrong with the maps as they are except that the division of the island into two States is present, which seems to be the only reason motivating this change.) In the third place, this kind of discussion of a massive change is NOT appropriate for the Irish Wikipedians interest group page. It must have broad consensus from the Wikipedia community in general. Please leave the maps alone. Evertype 07:47, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

As regards NI, see comments below (I have no problem with deliniating/recolouring Northern Ireland if people have issues with anything else). As regards the new map version, it is much more detailed and precise (that is the reason for the change. Try placing the cities on the map and Galway ends up in the sea, Cork has no harbour and Limerick no estuary), and *will* be replacing the Irish maps in some form or other. There is no reason for us to be stuck with them. I entirely disagree that this is a broader issue - it is pertinant only to the related Irish-topic articles that will be changed. There are other "custom" maps on Wikipedia. zoney ♣ talk 09:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah! You're referring to the colouring. I can change that to match the old colours. I'll do it properly at home this evening (I roughly changed NI to try keep people happy). zoney ♣ talk 10:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, nice job: much better detail than the original. As a map in the context of the traditional counties specifically, it's fine. But in an article like County Kerry it's referring to a political division of a modern state, and as such really ought to follow the general conventions of such (in particular, that it show the borders of that state). I don't know that there's a convention for the particular colours though -- is there? This seems to be about the best place to discuss it though, at least in the first instance. (Rather than a county article's talk page, say.) Alai 08:20, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What Evertype and Alai said. You could have a one-colour 32-county historic map and a 2 (or 3?) colour (26+5+5)+ 26 county/city + district map. Which you put where is another matter. On a related note, I've added the "new" counties to the "Counties of Ireland" category and removed the Northern Ireland ones since "Counties in Northern Ireland" is a subcategory (Breaching the no-supercats convention is unjustifiable POV in IMO. And Derry wasn't listed anyway?) Joestynes 08:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's evident that having a single-colour map will cause trouble. Regardless of usage re: traditional counties etc., I will deliniate/recolour Northern Ireland on the map to achieve consensus. zoney ♣ talk 09:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personaly i like the new map, it is more detaled in the county borders, as well as the coastline, which as mentioned above, will make it far more easier to place cities. As for the colors, i peronaly like the old colors, for me they just seem a bit easier on the eyes. I do agree with the seperation of the north with the rest of the Republic, espicaly sicne that thses maps are going to me more used for geo-political use then a strict geo use, ie showing landforms and such. As for a color a lot of what evertype said, if their is a "onvention for regional map colouring', is't lost on me, i have never seen it as a constant arcoss the board. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think that the similarity between Irish counties and Iranian provinces is accidental. There are conventions. Evertype 12:14, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

I agree that *many* maps follow this colour scheme, but others do not (see Texas for example). There's no suggestion anywhere of "convention". Plus the Irish situation is a self-contained series of maps. But if people prefer the old colour scheme (and I'm not exactly content with the new one anyway) I am happy to go with that. zoney ♣ talk 13:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I know, these maps (the ones matching Irish counties) are simply the personal format/style used by User:Morwen. Maps designed by others don't necessarily follow that scheme. So it's a question of what colours do we want (we are free to pick whichever works best for the Ireland maps). zoney ♣ talk 13:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is the attempt to establish a standard color set at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps, however few maps use the suggested palette, e.g. my maps of Thailand. andy 13:28, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think this alleged convention is more honoured in the breach: Hesse, Shropshire, Maine, Umbria, Guangdong... Alai 20:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I too like the new map and thanks for your hard work!... I have to admit though, I like the old colours as well and if there isn't a convention across regional map colouring on wikipedia then well, maybe there should be... *shrug* -- Lochaber 10:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taadaa!!!! Map recoloured (empty browser cache/refresh). Is the lynching over? :) Seriously, is this OK to go ahead with for all other pages? zoney ♣ talk 19:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really think that placing a north-south divide is inappropriate as 1) the counties predate partition of ireland by a long time 2) strictly speaking in both countries the present administrative boundaries do not follow the counties exactly particularily in the north 3) admitting the previous then we should agree on a traditional counties of ireland as this is the setting in which they are been presented, the cultural and social basis of the county system. These are traditional county maps not political maps of modern states.

Djegan - see new comments section below. Again an illustration why I feel a separate ROI admin counties series is needed. (The maps could be used as you wish above in the "traditional series", with NI only marked on the ROI admin county articles). zoney ♣ talk 20:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Where the two coincide, the same article can do double-duty for both, as long as the text makes it clear this is what's happening, and the two concepts aren't simply run together at high speed. Two maps on the one article isn't infeasible, either. Alai 22:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The new map with the old colours is OK with me; it keeps the traditional counties and colours and just adds detail. I'd say go ahead with the 32, but don't forget to upload them to the Vicipéid freisin. As far as the administrative counties go, keep them off these maps, please. Evertype 16:24, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a bit of a Seáinín-come-lately to this discussion, and you may think I'm being typically over-picky, but can I just say that the new map is great from the point of view of increased accuracy -- but could we, if possible, retain the old thickness (or rather, thinness) of the internal boundaries as used on the old map? Possibly this is a browser question, but the new ones look over-bold to me -- especially when you compare the new with the old map, where the thickness of the internal boundaries was, to my eye, just right. - Picapica 20:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aye, I'll have a look at it when I prepare these and upload them. Unfortunately time ran out for me, and I'm now in a period of great busyness outside of Wikipedia. I'll possibly not be doing much here for another two weeks at least while I finish a thesis I'm working on. zoney ♣ talk 21:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grma, a Z. Béir bua! -- Picapica 21:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oliver Plunkett

I put this article up on peer review just to gauge reaction and see if anyone has anything to add. Feel free to take a look over it as well. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A bit too hagiographical for my taste, but perhaps that comes with the territory. BrendanH 23:12, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sorting out the county article series

See the last line for how this relates to the new maps.

I still persist in saying the Irish administrative counties need to be a separate series from the traditional counties. I would like three separate series:

Republic of Ireland administrative counties - includes articles North Tipperary, South Tipperary, Fingal, etc.
Traditional (32) counties - includes articles County Antrim, County Down, etc.
The recently created NI council boroughs series.

This requires 24 new articles for the bulk of the ROI counties that the admin and traditional limits match.

My reasoning is that at the moment, the former two series are a mish-mashy pseudoseries, mainly the 32 traditional counties, but sort of including the "new" ROI counties (which Djegan quite rightly wants on a par with the other 24 ROI counties). If Djegan's standardisation of the ROI counties goes ahead, and Fingal, North Tipp etc. are put on a par with the other ROI counties, this leaves the 6 NI counties, County Tipperary and County Dublin on their own.

Obviously were there a separate "traditional counties" series, this would not need NI demarkated separately, as in historical terms, there is no difference between the Northern six counties and the rest.

The ROI admin counties series would have the 24 "normal" counties, plus N+S Tipp and 4 Dublin counties. NI would be demarkated separately, perhaps even just in white/grey with no subdivisions.

zoney ♣ talk 20:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

: I think we are over complicating the issue here regarding counties of Ireland - must everthing be placed into a specific category or series? I think it is enough that we recognise that their are thirty-two "traditional counties" of ireland which not always correspond to current on the ground facts. The realisation of this is that in the republic two traditional counties are in actuality split into five "administrative counties", whilst in the north their are no counties in an administrative sense at all and rather the system is split into an "alien" form of districts (which is currently at report stage for reform).

: In short i propose no change from the status-quo other than the acceptance of a north-south split on a county map of ireland is not at all accurate and and is a mickey mouse simplification. Ireland has never (certainly not since 1898) consisted of thirty-two counties in an administrative sense, traditional counties of ireland should have no north-south political boundaries for these reasons. Over complicating the issue is at perl of detracting from quality and common sense. Djegan 20:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I accept that the categorisation of counties and their status is important theirfore I propose that no additional articles be created and rather an appropriate recategorisation of effected counties. All 32 "traditional counties" of ireland should remain as is, all present "adminstrative counties" - new and old - should be recategorised as "Adminstrative counties of the Republic of Ireland" and any "Counties of Ireland" removed from new administrative counties of Dublin and Tipperary. Thus some counties in the republic will have two cateories, viz "Counties of Ireland" and "Adminstrative counties of the Republic of Ireland" without the need for additional articles where boundaries are uniform.

No - that wouldn't work - as I envisage two different types of map. In one, the map of Ireland has the new ROI admin counties marked out (as well as the other 24), and NI grayed out. On the other, the map has no ROI/NI distinction. zoney ♣ talk 22:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hope we are not going to get into a quagmire whereby we must have specific articles for traditional counties and specific articles for administrative counties and a series of maps to match this trend - it all adds up for poorer articles and uneccessary duplication in the republic of ireland counties. For the average person, who is not irish or does not know enough (or indeed care), this change simply adds up to over complicating an issue of status and extent. I maintain that it is good enough to simply point out some of the ideosycracies in the most simple, logical way with minimum fuss - maintain the status-quo with minimum change or risk seriously damaging the perception of how they are presented. The administrative and traditional counties in the republic are simply to uniform to require two tiers of articles.

In summary, i propose:

Counties of Ireland = 32 Traditional Counties

Administrative counties of ROI = 26 counties - tipp - dublin + 2 Tipp + 3 Dublin

Overlapping but no duplication.

Djegan 22:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A 32 county map as Zoney has recently proposed should have no north-south division as to do so is quite inaccurate as the 32 "traditional counties" have not had administrative effect for quite a long time and thus to place political (north-south) cognatations is wholly misleading. A north-south divide on maps, strictly speaking, showning the immediate below country level administrative divisions is far to complex for a map the size of the above to implement as the republic consists of 29 adminstrative counties and 5 cities and northern ireland consisists of 26 districts, Local Councils in Northern Ireland, this does not add to 32! Djegan 21:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(1) The "traditional" counties were in effect in NI from 1922-1974, a not insignificant length of time. (2) Also, the county boroughs (counties borough?) need to be included in "Administrative" counties. Personally I think articles Cork, Limerick etc (though not Dublin) should be renamed to "X City" (even if X is preserved as a redirect, which I also doubt). One consequence is this would certainly make the Counties Category clearer if/when they're added, since otherwise you have "Cork" and "County Cork" listed as counties. (3) I favour the one-article/two-categories/two-maps-per-article-where-appropriate solution. There is no point in separating County Clare (traditional) from County Clare (administrative). However, this has to involve renaming the "Counties of Ireland" Category to "Traditional Counties of Ireland"; the current name is ambiguous, which has contributed to the mess. Joestynes 01:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think having two maps on the article is a bit OTT. However, having only *one* map doesn't allow for using a "traditional counties map" as Djegan wants (i.e. one without NI division). Also if we only had one map per article (which I do favour), which ones would have the modern ROI county divisions? Just the "new county" articles? Should the non-dual-role (i.e. traditional only) counties (Tipp, Dub, Ferm, Ant, Down, Tyr, Derry, Arm) be the only ones with a "traditional map" (no NI division)? zoney ♣ talk 15:42, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One of the problems with including county boroughs is that they are incredibly small on a map of Ireland. I am not up for redirecting (if it were it would need to be "City of X" rather than "X City" system). Having two maps could detract somewhat as some of these articles are quite short. I appreciate the problem that Zoney is attempting to highlight (viz: administrative and traditional and how they should be presented to maintain uniformity and control) however my fear is that having, for instance, one article for the administrative and one for the traditional will very inevitably lead to someone realising that their is a very vague line separating them and thus either they will articles for merging or over time an immense amount of duplication and errors will occur between either. Another possibility is to jettison any idea of a traditional 32 county map (in county articles) and rather have a "Ceremonial Counties of Northern Ireland" (this is their current only offical status) map and a separate "Administrative Counties of the Republic of Ireland" map, with perhaps a "Traditional Counties of Ireland" category for both countries as applicable per article? Djegan 18:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyright on Irish Stamps

Anybody know an easy way to figure out the copyright of Irish Stamps, I have a few scans that I would like to add to commons and possibly use in a Irish Stamps article Kglavin 03:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you check with An Post see if their is any info they have on copyrights? --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All commemorative/special issues in the last decade or so have (c) YEAR on them, so I presume all are copyrighted (presumably with An Post who commission the designs) - probably even back to before they put (c) on the stamps.

zoney ♣ talk 10:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

will try press office of an post to see if I can get clarification as I know that certain countries stamps have a cutoff,

in the US I think its in the 70's so maybe there is a waters edge where stuff pre that predates that date is PD. Kglavin 23:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyright for stamps and currency really refers to copying the thing for use as a stamp or as legal tender. I believe that using the image of a stamp informatively in an encyclopaedia is not a breach of copyright. Otherwise there would be no images of banknotes or of coins either. Evertype 16:19, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I've been a lifelong collector of Irish stamps. They have been reproduced online by collector clubs (American Philatelic Society, Eire Philatelic Assoc., FAI in Germany), by Linn's Stamp News and individual collectors (myself included) and I have never heard of any objection from AnPost. Aranman 18:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After a bit of looking about, I realised that the stamps that are directly loaded onto en.wikipedia come in two forms PD and fair-use, I originally wanted to put these on commons.wikipedia but this requires PD while fair-use is good enough for en.wikipedia so thats were they have been added. They are in Category:Irish Stamp and I have only linked them as images to some relevant articles. if anybody has some cleaner scans i.e. with less strong inking please feel free to replace. Kglavin 22:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews

I know I've already added this to the news section, but many people don't read it. An Irish section has been created at Wikinews, so please contribute if you get a chance! CGorman 15:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Irish Categories and Sub-stubs?

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I am fairly comfortable with working with articles, but have found finding the right categories and stubs a bit difficult.

Is there a list of Ireland-related categories and stubs? For example, there are special stubs for US and UK buildings, as well as categories for local landmarks, etc.--but I have not found such for Irish buildings and landmarks. I added a stub article for Kilcrea Friary and my best guess (after looking in the general Category:Ireland) is a geo-stub and the Irish History category. Are these appropriate? Any ideas for different or more categories? Eoghanacht 15:11, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

The Irish articles are somewhat in need of further categorisation efforts. All abbey/friary/church related buildings could certainly do with their own category (one that is a sub-cat of Category:Irish architecture) - for now history is fine - unless you want to use the architecture cat. There are only two stub templates for Ireland at the moment {{Ireland-stub}}, {{Ireland-geo-stub}}}- they have a reasonably medium number of articles using them (about 400 each) but if one or two more suitably broad templates are suggested - we could implement them. Best starting place is to browse the associated categories for the existing stubs - to see what suitably large (no. of articles) topics can be identified.

zoney ♣ talk 20:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of Dublin

Hi everyone, I've expanded the history of dublin page a fair bit, but I think it may now be too long. Maybe it should be edited down or broken up into sections? Jdorney

A substantial amount of this (Destruction of Georgian Dublin, etc.) belongs in a new Architecture of Dublin page. To preserve the edit attribution, anyone splitting the page should put "content from [[History of Dublin]]" in the edit summary. Preferably the main contributor of that content (User:Djegan as far as I can see) should do this themselves.

zoney ♣ talk 15:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but some of it should be retained, I think. I think a good area to prune is the of British rule section, especially the boundary commission stuff. While its a good contribution, it doesn't really belong in a history of Dublin (as opposed to Ireland). Jdorney

That's not really quite the case. The history of Dublin as a seat of government is part of the city's history too (not just Ireland as a whole).

In any case, I think it might be best if Djegan was consulted - as he has done a lot of the work on this article. I've left a note on his talk page.

zoney ♣ talk 21:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree you shouldn't go tearing apart good contributions without consulting the people who made them Jdorney

Agreed their is need to shorten the article - a lot of it is architecture related (i have not reviewed it in detail recently). I will not be making any large or important contributions to wiki at the moment (say for the next week at least) as I am currently on holiday. All-in-all I have no problem with spliting the page into subsections as long as they are predominatly not making in into a series of history subarticles. I dont know if it will be easy to remove architecture from history material and still maintain some continuity? It may also be prudent to ensure that we do not repeat too much history of Ireland stuff as I know a lot of the work recently has been such?

Any other proposals? Djegan 14:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well my feeling is that the architecture stuff is very good - its basically a physical history of the city. However, some of the material relating directly to the preservation campaigns in the 60s and 80s could possible be made into a seperate article. Several other areas could be edited as well - eg the spire is mentioned twice, this could be merged and the traffic and commuting the same. I think we could do without the boundary commision paragraph, which could be moved to a history of the free state, but if other people disagree, thats fine. My reasoning is that there should be a mention of important events in the city. like the 1798 rebellion, (which didn't happen in the only due to a huge military presence) Robert Emmett rebellion which did happen, the nationalist taking over of the city's politics in the 19th, etc etc, but we can't fit even small mentions of these things in unless we prune it down a bit. The boundary commission however is not directly related to the city's as opposed to the country's history. And I agree of course people should be informed, accredited with changes to their work. (edit)I've just noticed that a lot of the material in the article is taken verbatim from the excellent Georgian Dublin article. Should it be re-produced in two different pages in the same form?

Jdorney

The article should be a history of the city, only national events that are relevant (to the city) should be mentioned as duplication is not ideal. I was not aware of the Georgian Dublin article until now, i have submitted very little to the history of dublin topic - my intitial intention was to remove the detailed history from the city article as it is overwhelming. Definitely the material should not be reproduced twice - I think merge with the Georgian article anything that is duplicated - have Georgian Dublin as a subarticle as this period was significant culturally for the city. Djegan 01:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well we're more or less agreed then. So who's going to do the editing? Jdorney

Not me, remember Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Djegan 21:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll give it a go. I'm going to move some of the georgin stuff to a new page and add in some extra history. Feel free to revert it if you feel its not working Jdorney

Wikimaps

Wikimaps Hi all, There's a deadly new experimental mediawiki project called Wikimaps that should interest Irish wikipedians. The project aim is to auto-generate maps from raw data for inclusion in wikipedia. Seabhcán 16:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irish Coins

I have produced articles on all modern Irish coins from the farthing to the fifty pence. Some work remains to be done like cross checking details on dates and composition - some more images have to be uploaded. I will move some material from the Irish Pound to a general article on Coinage of the Republic of Ireland (yet to be created) as a lot of it is just general Irish currency rather than pound stuff.

Djegan 19:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geographical Coordinates

This may not be news to some of you, but I thought I would share some info on adding map links to Irish geographical articles using templates.

For Kilcrea Friary I added this: 51°51′53″N 8°43′24″W / 51.86472°N 8.72333°W / 51.86472; -8.72333 by entering {{coord |51|51|53|N|8|43|24|W|}}

To find the coordinates, I first went to Tageo.com - Ireland and searched by placename. The detail was only to the minute, not second. I then went to MultiMap and searched for the nearest town. If you know where a site is related to landmarks, you can click on the spot, and the lat/long will appear in a box below.

For Ardmore, County Waterford I started the same way, but for a town I rounded to the nearest 15 seconds of arc.

For a city like Cork I did not bother with seconds (too much detail) and used the form: 51°54′N 8°28′W / 51.900°N 8.467°W / 51.900; -8.467 by entering {{coor dm |51|54|N|8|28|W|}}

On how to use the different templates, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates

—Eoghanacht 16:48, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Belfast Agreement move proposal

Their is a proposal to move Belfast Agreement to Good Friday Agreement - anyone with a view follow the link Talk:Belfast Agreement.

Djegan 18:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye

Thanks to all who have made it a joy to collaborate here. I had to give up Wikipedia to write a thesis, and I have grown to like being "free" of Wikipedia. I may be back sometime, but I don't know. I'm afraid of getting "sucked in" again.

All the best with your work.

Tóg go bog é, a cháirde.

zoney ♣ talk 15:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You'll be missed! CGorman 21:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One-room school

This new article mentions only the US and Australia. There were plenty of these in rural Ireland until recently. Seabhcán 11:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My 6-year-old is still in one - in Mallow - Pete C ^(talk) 11:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just made some Ireland-related edits, should anyone like to check. Mentioned gaelscoileanna and the Irish National School building program. - Pete C ^(talk) 12:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The original author added Ireland to the '"Did You Know ..." WP:DYK page. It's now on the Main Page!! - Pete C ^(talk) 13:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Francis Stuart

I meant to add a stub here and ended up with something a bit longer, it is rough the way it is now, but mores to the point, I want to do justice to his stature as a novelist and to the huge ambiguity surrounding his views, the high probability that his views were really unpleasant and the controvesy he provoked and would feel better if other people joined in. Notjim 02:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just had a quick look. One thing that jumped out at me was the statement that Gonne and Lucien Millevoye "had only a brief affair". This is far from true; in fact Iseult was their second child. The first, a son, died young and Iseult was conceived in his tomb as a deliberate attempt by Gonne to reincarnate the dead child. The affair was on/off for years starting in 1887 and Gonne's involvement in Lucien Millevoye's right-wing political circles stoked her own anti-Semitism. If I have time, I will try to add to the article later. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Filiocht, I don't know where I got that idea, one problem with the article is that I added some Iseult MacBride stuff (and did it inaccurately)clearly it would be better if she had her own short article. Notjim 08:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Route Irish?

I just read in "Nicola Calipari" that a special road leading from the Green Zone to the airport is named "Route Irish". Anybody know why? Seabhcán 10:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the beginning of 2005, the Irish Brigade (US) (the modern United States Army unit descended from the 69th New York State Volunteers, Company A, First Regiment, Irish Brigade, "Faugh a Ballagh") was given the job of safeguarding the five-mile stretch of highway linking Baghdad Airport and the Green Zone, the fortified compound that houses American and Iraqi government buildings. The highway is frequently called the most dangerous road in Iraq and is now referred to within the military as "Route Irish". Eamonn Fitzgerald's "Rainy Day" Saturday, 12 March 2005 --Eoghanacht 11:49, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Were members of the Irish Brigade involved in Nicola Calipari's shooting? Seabhcán 14:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't know the parameters of their duty. It may entail defending checkpoints, or it may be limited to patrols and investigating suspicious vehicles and objects for terrorist activity. --Eoghanacht 14:51, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)