Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Archive 4

Sustainability

The point, surely is that options A, B and F are the contentious ones that are likely to perpetuate conflict. The way in which the options are presented fail to make uninvolved editors aware of the some of the issues around this. Add to that an involved admin banning an editor from the other side (sorry DrK but I think that was plain wrong). In retrospect a parallel "most disliked" poll might also have been informative. I'd also say that I saw no attempt at moderation of the subject, just a move to a vote. --Snowded ^TALK 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The introduction clearly points out the status quo has caused problems over the years, that is why we are having a poll on it. People are urged to read the position statements, some of which detail this problem. Although i notice none provide any details as to WHY the term Republic of Ireland is so offensive and how many are offended in the real world.

Several months ago i supported a compromise to choose option D, i also on several occasions said we should avoid the two problematic options (B + F and later A which was added) but that time has been and gone. No compromise could be reached, we could hardly have a poll on the Ireland article names and not include the status quo. As for the system, this STV means people are able to rank their preferences and put F as their least favourite option or not include it at all. This system is far harder for F to win than if we would have used First past the post for example.

On the issue of the previous ban, it is hardly a major incident that has a radical impact on the poll. People from all sides agree it was unfair for one editor to be blocked for 24 hours whilst there had been many comments on this page that could merit warning, but she is here now and able to "contribute" as usual.

Whilst at the moment it looks like F is doing well, if that was not the case i would not be trying to make out like this poll is somehow invalid or needs rejecting. I was concerned about many things before the poll started, wanting further clearly presented detail of the pros and cons added to the ballot page but that proved to be impossible. The collaboration project supported this process, voters of F were not the only ones pushing us to start the vote (I was delaying right up until the night the poll opened), we must all live with the outcome of this vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To repeat once more:

I did not say that I - or anyone else - found the term "Republic of Ireland" offensive - nor did I say otherwise. To name that state "Ireland" comes from the Irish law. To name (not describe) the state "Republic of Ireland" comes from British Law. I am attempting to explain why it could be said that to use "Ireland" is Irish POV and to use "Republic of Ireland" is British POV. ClemMcGann (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that those from the Republic of Ireland who want to have their country have the prime spot could be considered as supporting their countries own POV as it seeks to undermine the island of Ireland. I dont make that claim, all im saying is some may consider / look at it that way. However i totally reject this idea that ROI is British POV or in some way offensive (which some have claimed). No evidence has been provided to show Irish people are offended by it, the evidence all goes against this claim because it is used by the Irish government, Irish parliament members, Irish media, Irish football team and ofcourse the term was created by the Irish government. One point that i will accept, is that if we were trying to make people think ROI was the title of the country before the belfast agreement then yes that would be pushing British POV. But we are not trying to mislead people about the country name, it is very very clear in the first paragraph of the introduction (if people read it) that the title of the country is Ireland, and ROI is just a description uses because Ireland is ambiguous. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess if somebody says "it offends me" you have to take them at their word. It doesn't have to be the case that everybody is offended, you know. Surely you understand that people have feelings about their country, and about its history, and about its recent and not-so-recent history in relation to another country. The "total rejection" that you offer is counter-productive in terms of this Collaborative project. -- Evertype·✆ 14:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To call the state "Republic of Ireland" comes from common practice, originating in Irish legislation. In the same way, to call the state "Ireland" comes from common practice, also originating in Irish legislation. This is not a legal encyclopedia, it is a general one. Irish or UK law does not dictate what we call one thing or another. And merely a clutch of states are located at titles dictated by legislation in whatever jurisdiction one editor or another may favour or despise. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"The issues around this" are discussed on the position statement's page and above on this page. Uninvolved editors are voting for "F" because, from what they have said, they are unconvinced by arguments for other options and convinced are by argument for it. What the poor judgement of DrKiernan has to do with an argument to or for a title for the ROI article, I don't know. It looks like mud-slinging to me.

"The point, surely is that options A, B and F are the contentious ones that are likely to perpetuate conflict." It's arguments such as that that they find particularly unconvincing to them from what I understand. As things stand nearly 50% of people rank "F" as their first preference (out of a field of six options). After transfers, it's one-and-a-half times more popular that the second-place option ("E"). Trying to pass it off as contentious is disingenuous. All of the options are contentious for one reason or another. And all are valid or one reason or another. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one uninvolved editor (hmm, am I still allowed to call myself that?) who is slowly beginning to make sense of the situation. If I am allowed to take up so much space again:

• In the Republic of Ireland, the term Republic of Ireland is only used for disambiguation purposes, and in situations where people can guess what is meant Ireland seems to be preferred.
• Outside Ireland, the term Republic of Ireland is quite generally used as if it was the official name of the state, and Ireland is used as a convenient shorthand for that. This is a misunderstanding based in part on analogy with a large number of other countries which did not have a slow phase-out of a monarch in their history.
• Any offence caused by this is initially not nationalist but simply the kind of pedantry that makes almost all of us have a strong opinion (one way or the other) about minor details such as serial commas or split infinitives.
• Since there is a widespread misconception about the country's name, the article should set it right. It currently tries to do so at the end of the first paragraph, but that is not effective because what sticks in people's minds is the article title.
• The misconception could be set right in the first sentence, but that would be undue weight to what is really just a very minor aspect of a large country inhabited by many people, with a long history etc. Starting this article with a discussion of the name is like starting an article on Shakespeare with a discussion of his use of the split infinitive. (By the way, the etymology also has extreme undue weight. That's a problem in many Wikipedia article and unfortunately sanctioned by MOS.)
• The most elegant way to solve the problem is to rename the article to Ireland (some disambiguator).
• All of this is very hard to see when you come to the poll with no prior knowledge of the situation. Renaming Republic of Ireland makes the article slightly better and the disambiguation structure slightly worse. By focusing on the disambiguation structure and ignoring the content of the article Republic of Ireland, the poll favours the status quo.
• The discussions here, and in particular the red herrings concerning nationalism or national POVs, did not help to explain the issues to the uninvolved voters and make them consider the article as well as the overall structure.

All things considered, I think I am going to switch my vote (after sleeping over it once) and support renaming the article, although I am not at all happy with (state) since there are many "countries" such as the US which consist of "states" and I know only one "state" (the UK, obviously relevant here) which consists of "countries". I would prefer Ireland (republic), since that is even more effective in marking the difference to both the island and Northern Ireland and moreover seems to draw special attention to the title. But this is really just a minor point.

Sswonk above has accused me of simply following the decision tree and ignoring common sense. That would have been very atypical for me. What happened was that I didn't have the necessary information to even get to the common sense argument that trumps the decision tree, and nobody volunteered the information in a form that I could understand. Hans Adler 13:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't given this section an entire analysis yet, and have signed up to chill for 24 hours, but since your conclusion mentions me: just because I suggested following common sense doesn't mean I "accuse" you of anything. It's a summary statement of belief I made, not an accusation or disparagement by any means. That is all, see you tomorrow. Sswonk (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it never even occurred to me that I could be offended by what you wrote, so my formulation was careless. I think I understood it the way you meant it, but didn't make that clear. Hans Adler 14:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That might be the coolest-headed summary of the situation I have ever heard (I don't there there is even a person on the "anti-ROI" side that could sum it up better). Although, I would say that the article does kicks off with "Ireland is a country in Europe..." (as well as the usual info boxen). I personally thing that "Ireland (Republic of)" is the elegant of all compromises (although it doesn't fit with MOS), though all of these alternatives got shot down in a preliminary vote. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (xxxx) is the only proper way for the encyclopedia to go with disambiguation. RoI, not being the proper title, is non-informative, and does not deliver the goods as far as education is concerned, and causes even more confusion. It's near impossible to understand the concept of RoI unless Ireland (state), whatever, is first understood. Hans Adler has hit on some very important points. Tfz 14:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's very thoughtful Hans, and probably the best argument I've yet seen for a move. That being said, I'm not convinced, largely because of this: Since there is a widespread misconception about the country's name, the article should set it right. It currently tries to do so at the end of the first paragraph, but that is not effective because what sticks in people's minds is the article title. I don't find this part particularly convincing. How do you know what "sticks in people's minds"? The infobox says "Ireland." The first line of the article says "Ireland." The use of "Republic of Ireland" is explained in the first paragraph, and there's a whole section on the name. Obviously, people can be careless and get the wrong impresion. But when people are careless they can always get the wrong impression. TfZ's point above seems incoherent to me - just because "Republic of Ireland" is not the name of the state does not mean its use is "non-informative" or that it causes more confusion. I don't understand the second to last sentence at all. What is there to understand about "the concept of RoI"? Is it even a concept? It's a disambiguating term. john k (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RoI is a concept. No if I refer to you as John, will other editors know who I am referring to, as there is another admin called John. Some editors will catch on to my mistake, but many will not. Therefore it is important to use proper names at all times. Tfz 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an argument for unambiguous names at all times, not official names, which doesn't seem to support your point. And even that makes little sense. How on earth is calling me "John" a mistake? It's my name. You are right about official names at all times. If my mom ever calls me "Johnny," I indicate to her that my official legal name, as registered on my birth certificate, passport, and social security card, is "John Lowenstein Kenney," and request that she call me that at all times. Perhaps I've been looking at this all in the wrong way. john k (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gets a bit confusing, doesn't it? Think you missed my input about the "Wikipedian-disambiguation-handle" being bracketed. Tfz 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just one minor point of clarification. I think the international confusion is not so much because of the different way in which Ireland remove the monarchy but primarily because Ireland is one of the very few countries where the "short form" is the official name rather than the long form. Most countries have an official name in a form that says what the country is - e.g. "Federal Republic of Germany", "Republic of South Africa", "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan", "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", "Commonwealth of Australia", "Argentine Republic" or "United Mexican States". Only a few have the official name in short form - off the top of my head New Zealand and Canada are the only other ones I can think of (Canada phased out most use of the term "Dominion of Canada" in the second half of the twentieth century). Hence people assume Ireland conforms to this trend. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just would like to suggest that if you want to make statistical statements like this ("very few countries use the short form") then you should back that up with references. Unfortunately it would take some time as [3166] just gives the short names. -- Evertype·✆ 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have a good source as far as the EU is concerned. It turns out that Romania is the only other EU country with a short official name. [1] Hans Adler 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The following countries have a form which says nothing about their form of government, as per List of sovereign states: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Canada, Georgia, Grenada, Ireland, Jamaica, Malaysia, Mongolia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, and Ukraine. As can be seen, of the 21, over half (11) are commonwealth realms. Also, besides Ireland, only Georgia is ambiguous. john k (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How can Ireland be ambiguous, there is only one country in the world called Ireland. Tfz 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. john k (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I really need to take issue with Hans on another point. When he says "The most elegant way to solve the problem is to rename the article to Ireland (some disambiguator)", I really think he is totally wrong. The use of parentheses, whilst widespread across the encyclopedia, is anything but elegant. In fact I believe they are unbelieveably ugly. They are a simple, inelegant, geeky solution to a technical restriction of the mediawiki software used to manage the encyclopedia. For me, any solution that avoids their usage is preferable. Fmph (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This. My basic feeling is that it is long past due that wiki software can give us multiple articles with the same title. That would avoid the whole problem by allowing us to have Ireland and Ireland both at the the same title. john k (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Could have Ireland. -- and why not. By special arrangment with Arbcom support. 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With a period? That's really awful. john k (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An 'iota' is a small price to pay for peace. What price do you think we should pay? Tfz 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Grrrr i been trying very very hard not to comment for the day in line with the 24 hour break, but just a very quick point on the dot thing. Arguements would start over which article has to have the "." the island or the Country? anyway hopefully last comment by me here for the day. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes me too, but couldn't have missed that intriguing suggestion by john. Tfz 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A disambiguator shouldn't be completely random. How does Ireland. indicate that we are referring to the state? john k (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually mediawiki already HAS the ability to differentiate by initial case, so Bath/bath and Cork/cork are both possible, but Wikipedia has chosen not to implement it. Fmph (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This would be useful for those cases, although not so much for this one. But what I really think should be done is to have a system where the url for linking and such is at Ireland (state), but this displays at the top of the page as Ireland. This would allow a lot of much more elegant solutions to disambiguation, in that we could have the working title be something which is always consistent and parenthetical, and the display title could always be the most common name. Nobody seems interested in actually doing this, though. john k (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediawiki (more precisely Template:DISPLAYTITLE) can do this, but the function doing it has been artificially restricted so that it only works if the displayed title is such that when you paste it into the URL bar you get the same article. Essentially this means that the only additional option we get from this feature is "Republic of Ireland". That would certainly be an eye-catcher. Hans Adler 19:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that's a good idea. Personally, I think this artificial restriction should be removed, and it should become commonplace for the display title and the actual title to be different, but obviously this would be a project-wide decision which would have a lot of ramifications. It'd sure resolve a lot of problems here, though. john k (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fmph, I totally agree with you that Ireland (some disambiguator) is inelegant and in fact ugly. That's exactly why I opposed it initially. But once I saw it from the other angle, I realised that if we accept this ugliness it gives us a very elegant solution to the problem of saying clearly enough but without undue weight how Ireland, the country, should normally be referred to. If there is another solution to that problem, I guess it's even more ugly. And I am in favour of addressing the problem. So it's really a trade-off. Hans Adler 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Technical solution to a cultural/political problem

We are at loggerheads here because a technical limitation of the Mediawiki software used to manage WP means we cannot have 2 artickes with the same title. Given that we cannot find consensus other than the somewhat unsatisfactory status quo, is it possible that we might be able to find a technical solution to the problem? The technical problem as I see it is that every article in WP must have a unique Title. The Title is the form of words which appears at the top of each article, below the tabs and any hatnotes and above the words "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". It also appears in the title bar of most (all?) browsers. In mine it would say "Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Mozilla Firefox" on the Ireland article.

So the title "Ireland" must be unique within the WP database - as it is currently constructed. This uniqueness is case-sensitive, so IRELAND would be unique from say Ireland. That's not a proposal BTW. There was a limitation within the software that enforced this uniqueness everywhere except the initial letter, i.e. eBay and EBay are the same article.

We know that there is a function available on the software which allows uniqueness including initial letter case uniqueness, but actually WP have chosen not to implement it here, for some reason. What if there were another technical solution to the duplicate article title issue? Suppose we could have 2 Ireland articles, one about the island and the other about the state? Would such a solution gain a consensus?

I don't imagine it would be simple, and I do imagine it might require lots of piping and/or templating within content, but if it were technically possible to do, would the community embrace it as a solution to this issue?

Well i do not know how case sensitivity can be used to disam the two articles, even if it did not force the first letter to be a capital, the island of Ireland has a capital I like the state and it would be very random depending how people enter the term into the search option where they end up. The suggestion of trying to change the main title on the page to Republic of Ireland seems like a good idea and worth doing to help further point out the ROI isnt the official name of the state. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Ireland_(disambiguation) , don't have Wikipedia's problems, though I do think that Ireland, as is now at WP should remain the wp:primary topic. Tfz 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I would support this as a general change in how titling articles on Wikipedia works. It seems like doing it to only one article might create problems in terms of confusing people. But I'd certainly be open to the possibility, if it could be done. I will say that I would rather have Ireland (state) than Republic of Ireland. john k (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes i wouldnt like the link like that and would prerer (state), but having the title of the article appear in the way shown in the section above wouldnt seem that out of place and might be useful. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Limited Options

I am sure that this was discussed earlier but I haven't been following the preliminary discussions closely enough. Still the question of how to properly divide the content between articles and how to disambiguate the article on the modern sovereign state (assuming it is not the primary topic) are at least potentially separate. In particular, I feel quite strongly that the official, self-selected description "Republic of Ireland" should be used in preference to a parenthetical disambiguator, but don't really consider the island the primary topic as it is define on Wikipedia. Thus F is my first choice, but I'd prefer E or C if they used RoI instead of Ireland (state). When this is discussed again in two years, I think that a more widely publicized debate on that issue would be a good idea. Having reviewed this talk page, I realize that this wouldn't assuage the concerns of those editors who object to RoI as unacceptable British POV, but no sollution will satisfy everyone. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would go with C as my first preference; but accepted alternatives as a compromise. Dismissing concerns of "some" editors is all fine and dandy until you consider that those "some" who object object to British pov beong imposed on the Ireland article actually represent a clear majority of Irish editors. F is not a sustainable option. Sarah777 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, there was enough options to choose from. PS: my 24hr break ends. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Eluchil404, this should certainly be looked at again in 2 years time no matter which option is chosen this time. Without going over old ground there was agreement we didnt want too many options on the poll and at the time the options were being added i do not recall anyone pushing for other options with ROI on the ballot. Infact some of those who oppose the status quo seem to think that should not of been an option on here either. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As R.A.'s tally shows, Sarah, a clear majority of Irish editors actually favour F. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

But then I reckon that while folk like J Kenny insist on making poisonous statements like "Sarah's whole argument here has been "British people are racist against the Irish and they use 'Republic of Ireland,'" without a shred of evidence to support it and then goes on to suggest that Irish editors be banned while he can continue to spout gibberish unchallanged we are going nowhere.

I would seriously suggest Kenny recuse himself from this process before he does any more damage. DrKiernan set a good example which Kenny might emulate. Kenny also said, without sanction or referral to anywhere "it seems to me that Sarah should probably be banned from this page for making "anti-British remarks," since virtually all of her comments qualify as such." So, analysis voting patterns and pointing out the obvious are "anti-British remarks"? The legitimate view that "RoI" is a diminutive title for Ireland which is maintained by weight of non-Irish votes, though factual, is "anti-British"?

While this sort of intimidation of Irish editors is on-going (sporadically supported by Admin actions and threats) - we have no process. Bastun: it certainly does not. I ceased to tally the votes when this process was effectively dissolved - at that stage F was the least favoured option among Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way my silence since the bad block was while I tried to get officialdom to deal with personal attacks on me by Kenny, Egan and others. It appears that their language is OK; so I am now free to respond in kind. I'd be inclined to agree with Bastun that we should have some rules - but I sure ain't agree to rules that silence just one half of the debate. Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So its back to the enviornment we had a few days ago with certain editors making grossly misleading claims. Welcome back Sarah. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh - you mean that one where yerself and J Kenny were talking to one another? I'm not responsible for RA's grossly misleading claims. Take it up with him. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You could at least spell my name correctly. And how on earth am I intimidating anybody? john k (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You threatened to block me when I removed your vile personal attack. In the edit comment I think. Notice how many Irish editor's have left the building in my absence? Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not threaten to block you, and I certainly never had any thought that I might conceivably block you. You had said that you would remove any statements I made because I was making personal attacks on you, and proceeded to remove a comment I had made. My statement was basically an observation - if you had carried out that threat to remove any statements I added to the talk page, I suspect you would have been blocked. But I was certainly not threatening to block you. john k (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the process not "dissolved", but RA's tallies - and Valenciano's - have been ongoing from pretty much the start, and consistently show that F is the preferred option of non-Irish/non-British voters, and of British voters, and of Irish voters.[2][3][4] Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Nul points. Wrong. RA includes British editors in his "analysis". And I don't really want to expand this argument to the J Kennies but I refer you to my explanations of systematic pov problems on "List of events called Massacres". (Previously called "List of Massacres"). Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No true Irishman? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have clearly stated who and what I am counting in which category. And why. Unlike yourself. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalking?

I note that J Kenney has now followed me to Earl of Mayo and List of events named massacres having earlier followed my edit log to Shrule. Some irony here; he was demanding evidence that the name "RoI" was leading to disruption or "collateral edit warring"; now is is personally providing the proof! Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

umm maybe im missing something? The edit history of Earl of Mayo says..

00:34, 13 August 2009 John Kenney

09:24, 13 August 2009 Sarah777

The talk page history of List of Events...

23:04, 14 August 2009 John Kenney

23:37, 14 August 2009 Sarah777

How did he follow you there? Am i reading these things wrong???BritishWatcher (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as usual, you are. The migration of Kenney to "List of Massacres" followed me mentioning it on my talkpage; the Mayo edit warring followed his arriving at Shrule. Now BW, why don't you hop off back to the defence of British pov you are currently conducting at Talk:British Isles? (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, where you told him to look so thats hardly "stalking". Still two of those articles he edited or posted on the talk page before you. Thats very good stalking. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tell him to look anywhere. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Y'know BW, if you were half as smart as you think you are you'd be a bloody genius. And if you were twice as smart as you really are I could call you "Rover" and teach you to do tricks. Sarah777 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's not a WP:NPA, that's an "evaluative and descriptive criticism" (per Evertype). Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"See the talk on List of events called massacres." you said that on the Shrule talk page. Sounds like an invite to me. As for the British Isles, i will happily comment in both places. We should not forget that you have tried to rename the British Isles article on atleast 2 occasions because you reject the name, hmm you are pushing for a name change here too :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How nice BritishWatcher (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. It wasn't meant to be "nice"; just evaluative. And I think you'll find I was addressing MrDowney when I referred to massacres. Kenney was not involved. Except he went off to do a bit of stalking. Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like ur comment was responding to him on the talk page. It was certainly AFTER hed made a post. I understand that after being reasonable in responding to that other matter (which i respect you for) you are now having to make up for lost time. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhoh, Masems posted on a noticeboard about this talk page... i think its time me and you went to bed Sarah (not together ofcourse). BritishWatcher (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have little to fear BW. The only other time Masem was moved to act was to report me to Arbcom. I'd reckon he has a specific target in mind. Overall, I'm not impressed by the quality of the moderation. Sarah777 (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Okay, firstly, I did follow Sarah to Shrule, but not from her edit history. I was reading her talk page because she was threatening to get someone to block me, and I was interested in seeing if anyone had responded to you there. I came across the Shrule issue there. I was interested in looking at the article, to see what the dispute was. I did some research on the subject, and posted it on the talk page with lengthy quotes from secondary sources, for the hopeful improvement of the article. I did not edit the article, nor did I change any of Sarah's work there, as I figured that might be inflammatory, given that we haven't built up a good working relationship, to say the least. While looking into the Shrule situation, I noticed that a Viscount Mayo was involved. I looked at the Earl of Mayo page to see if we had an article about this particularly Viscount. We did not, but I also discovered that the article was oddly formatted, and didn't include dates for several viscounts. So I changed that. Sarah followed me there and reverted me, on the pretext of removing red links (which were completely valid in that instance, since all of the viscounts and most to all of the earls are plausible subjects for having their own articles). She also posted at Talk:Shrule with what I took to be a suggestion that I look at List of events called massacres. I looked at that, and found the introduction to be horribly written, which I commented on at the talk page. I don't see how I've done anything wrong here, certainly nothing to justify a claim that I am "stalking" her. john k (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK John. I withdraw the "stalking" claim. Your explanations seem reasonable and I've made my WP:POINTY. I'm sorry you didn't withdraw your dissing of my edit record or your "poisonous" claim - but such is life. I still don't see how you justify the Earl of Mayo redlinks mind. Also apologise to BW. And Evertype. Though I'm not exactly happy about the things they said. 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably a stupid idea

Using the DISPLAYTITLE function, we can make the title of Republic of Ireland display as follows:

"Republic of Ireland".

I have tested it on the page, and you can see the effect here. If we do this, MOS will probably be updated to forbid it, but still... I just wanted to mention the possibility as one thing to think about during the cooling-down break, which I also intend to observe now. Hans Adler 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Now this is really stupid, but technically possible is also the following:

"Republic of Ireland".

I just tested it with the preview function. (Didn't want to deface the article in this way, not even for a minute.) Hans Adler 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Republic of Ireland work? woops broke the break rule again lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Here it is: [5]. Hans Adler 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm if the outcome is the status quo id support that, doesnt make a huge difference but just another way to help highlight Ireland in ROI incase a few fail to read the first paragraph and just go on article title. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" , doesn't really work, but was a good idea to try it out. Tfz 20:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "doesn't really work"? That it's not really acceptable? Quite likely, but technically it works. Hans Adler 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's the the same as 'Republic of Ireland', imo, and I take it that it was intended as a compromise. Tfz 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply say Ireland (Republic) if we wish wish to keep the description in the title? Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's technically possible to have the title just display "Ireland". All you have to put is {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span>Ireland}}. Some devs might come around and kill people for the hack, but like I say, it's entirely possible, and of course it could be done in other ways, as it's possible to hide anything in the same fashion. For example, we could do {{DISPLAYTITLE:Ireland <span style = "display:none">(state)</span>}} and so on. I think you get the idea. Cool3 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Tried {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span>Ireland}}, and it didn't work for me. Maybe someone else test it out. Tfz 06:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. It needs to be with the space, {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span> Ireland}}. If you try that, it should work. Cool3 (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Works like a treat. See here [6] . Tfz 08:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Country vs. State

Options C,D, and E all provide for naming an article Ireland (state). This may well have been discussed, if so please just point me in that direction, but why has the decision been made to use "state" rather than "country". A state is a political entity, thus in such an article one would expect to see articles on political and institutional arrangements. The article in question refers to much more than the political encompassing the cultural, economic, etc. As such, it is an article not about a state but about a country. I would further point out that at the moment the note at the top of Ireland reads "For the sovereign country named 'Ireland', see Republic of Ireland." So I ask, why use state when country is a better term? Cool3 (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, for I proposed 'sovereign country' and didn't get the support to carry it through, and it's already used to describe the country, from your quote, "For the sovereign country named 'Ireland', see Republic of Ireland.". Agree, 'state' is a thin/shallow to describe the entirety of the country, ancient and modern. Tfz 05:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Prior to this poll, there was an internal poll at the IECOLL project to try to decide what options for disamb terms should be present (state, country, etc.), as each term would have added at least 3 options to this (so if we had "state" and "country" that would have 9 total options on this poll) so we wanted to minimize the number used. In that poll, "state" ran away with that vote, and thus was the only clear option to include. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But it was not an internal poll, it was advertised in almost all the places and to the same people this main poll was. State had a strong lead, im not sure why (country) didnt do so well. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The current Ireland article is about the country of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland article is about the modern state that covers about five sixths of the country, and that may or may not still be here in thirty years. Scolaire (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What?!! If we get hit by a comet the island may not be here in 30 years. Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohh yes that was the thing, some viewed the term country as meaning the whole island rather than the current sovereign state, something i never quite understood, but i seem to recall several people having those concerns. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, that at least sort of makes sense. The political scientist in me shudders, but the historian understands. Cool3 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What does the geographer, sociologist, cultural studies, sportsman, artist/author, theologian, tourist, etc. in you think? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, that criticism applies equally to "state". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Which criticism? And how does it apply? Scolaire (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a good place to respond to Tfz [7]; the Village Pump certainly isn't. My concern is that Ireland referring to the island or the state according to context is one thing, but if we set things up so that the sovereign state is the primary topic and the island secondary, I would expect serious conflict with some people from Northern Ireland, and I wouldn't blame them for that. If the European Union renamed itself to just Europe, I would similarly argue against putting it into the primary position for this name, out of respect for Swiss and Norwegian people. If I am wrong about this and it's uncontroversial to see Northern Ireland as somehow a part of the Republic of Ireland, then I will happily change my vote again and put option B first. Hans Adler 20:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is no way the sovereign state should have the prime spot, i feel far more strongly about that than the article titles issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. I would find that to be similar to when (usually American) media reports refer to the whole of Britain or the UK as "England". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Solution Found

[8]
Thanks to the expertise of user:Cool3, a solution has been found to the disambiguation conundrum, and here it is [9]. A piece of technology has made it possible to give both entities their proper title. Tfz 08:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How is that being done? Definitely worth exploring. (Note, I'm seeing a 'nowiki' html code on the first line there). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The code used is {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style = "display:none">Republic of</span> Ireland}} - in other words, it suppresses the "Republic of" from public view.

The problem with this solution is its effect on search and links. Readers unfamiliar to this discussion may well come to this article and assume that if they type Ireland in the search bar, they will come to this article - and will then be surprised to find themselves at a completely different one. Editors may assume that if they type the title of this article into their pipelink, they will actually get to this article. Neither assumption is unreasonable, but both would be wrong.

Because of this, I think this solution considers the editors over the readers. The fact that editors cannot agree on a title is made more important than the potential for confusion of having two articles at (ostensibly) exactly the same title. Having an article that is difficult to find is not much better than not having an article at all. Pfainuk talk 10:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely your concern about editors typing the title of this article into their pipelink is an instance of considering editors over readers, as well? At any rate, I agree that it would be highly problematic to do this for this article alone, but I think it would be a fine thing to institute a general rule to allow it. john k (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Granted, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that this solution considers the editors involved in debating the Ireland naming issue over both readers and non-involved editors. My point is that such a system is likely to cause a lot of confusion, without any great benefit. Most readers, I would expect, do not care strongly whether the article on the Irish state is at Republic of Ireland, Ireland or Ireland (state). Neither do most editors. I would note that the advantage of a word in brackets as a disambiguator is that it is clear to everyone that it is a disambiguator - that's why E is my preferred solution to this. Pfainuk talk 13:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pfainuk, to have two articles with identical titles may cause some confusion to readers. Im not against the idea and it may resolve part of the problem but would be too disruptive if this wasnt implemented on a far larger scale with more articles.BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

On the opposite side to Pfainuk's argument is that most readers looking for the article named Ireland are in fact looking for the state, and they get the island. So why so important to one issue, and not to another! Tfz 15:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasonably simple: I put it that way around because the example noted at the beginning of this thread suppresses the "Republic of" in "Republic of Ireland". Ireland is already the article on the island, so if a user types Ireland in the search box, they get the article on the island. If the articles are moved, details change - but the fundamental point is identical. If the state ends up at Ireland, people reading the article on the island will now be misled into thinking that that is the article at Ireland. Any time you have two articles that appear to have the same title, you're going to have this problem. Pfainuk talk 22:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Pretty good idea to use a "display:none" tag for "Republic of". Forget about the "</nowiki>" tag, that can simply be removed.

I have no idea whether I should like this solution or not. First I liked it. Then I thought, if we do it that way anyway, it's cleaner to call the article "Ireland (state)" and hide the "(state)" part. And then I realised that the reason for hiding the parenthetical disambiguator in this case is only slightly stronger than it is for the average disambiguated page. In other words: If we do it, then it should really be done for all, or at least many, disambiguated pages.

I believe encyclopedias sometimes have two articles with the same name following each others. I think we might decide that we want something similar in Wikipedia.

How about this new guideline:

A parenthetical disambiguator in an article title may be removed using DISPLAYTITLE and display:none. In this case the article should normally start with a short note explaining that it resides technically under a different title, followed by a disambiguation note for the displayed title (not the long title).

Example. [10] Of course such a new rule would have be discussed widely. I don't know yet whether I would support such a proposal, but it seems to make some sense. Hans Adler 11:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hans, this is a proposal that I think that I would support. It has a lot of implications that will need to be considered, but I think that ultimately there's a lot to be said for it. In particular, as you note, other encyclopedias all are willing to simply use the same title for different articles. If there's no longer a technical limitation, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same, since it would eliminate a host of unattractive parenthetical disambiguators. It would also allow virtually all articles to display the most common name at the top of their article. If this could be agreed upon for the project as a whole, I would certainly support a move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state), provided that it displayed as "Ireland". I suspect there will be considerable opposition, though, on the grounds that it breaks the long-standing rule that the display title should always be the same as the real title. john k (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know where this could be discussed to get wide input from the broader community? This is obviously not the best place to discuss it. john k (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely fantastic idea!78.16.34.104 (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have some more larger scale (outside the bounds of IECOLL) issues with this - it's a potential UI problem for newer editors (they'll believe that the page's name is Ireland, and will not be able to figure out why linking to that keeps getting the island/disamb page, unless they knew to look at the URL. However, it's also not an idea to throw away, and I think the best place to get input is at WP:VPP, which I will do now. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans did note that, in addition to the URL, there should be a notice at the top mentioning that the display title is different from the location. And obviously our editing guides and the like could be edited to take note of this, so as to warn editors about the possibility. Obviously the transition issues would be tough, but I think once people get used to the new system, it wouldn't be any harder to deal with than what we have now. john k (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

People are possibly missing the point that if option F wins this vote by a substantial majority, as seems likely, the article is going to have to be rewritten to state once again what was always true, that the state is also known as the Republic of Ireland. People are not voting for the article to be at "Republic of Ireland" just so the title can be hidden. Scolaire (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Scolaire - personally, I am voting for "Republic of Ireland" because I prefer natural disambiguators to parenthetical ones. If we can eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguators entirely - or, at least, for seeing the parenthetical disambiguators, that's a rather different matter. I support Republic of Ireland because it is the best title if Ireland is unavailable (which it is). If the article could be titled "Ireland," I would be happy to support that. This may not be true of everyone, of course, but I don't think it follows that everyone who is voting for it is uber-committed to having the title show as "Republic of Ireland." john k (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine for you, but I don't think we can assume that other voters had the same motivation. I voted for something completely different as my first choice, but I believe we must respect the wishes of the clear majority of voters, and not second-guess their intentions. Scolaire (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a solution that should be given serious consideration. --HighKing (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) Hiding part of an article's title has severe usability implications that should be discussed in a more natural forum. I would suggest WT:NC and possible a WP:CENT notice. Powers ^T 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If we were to go down this route, why is there a need to move the article to Ireland (state) if the title is just going to display Ireland anyway? I think there are some problems with having two identical titles on two very similar articles like this which would lead to confusion for many people. And if we are going to have to put a note detailing the article names, such a note could be added ensuring everyone knows ROI is only a description not the official title of the state anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It raises a few issues that need further broad discussion at WP. 'Educational and reader objectives' must be paramount at all times. Tfz 15:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Please note that a parallel discussion of this issue is in progress at the village pump. Cool3 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. What a nightmarish precedent to propose for this encyclopaedia. -- Evertype·✆ 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We would need wide input before going down that route. It presents potentially serious UI issues for users. Any solution has to put the needs of readers first and the desires of editors last. I feel that this solution approaches the "problem" from the other way around.

However, if people are serious about it I think this discussion should move to the Village Pump or to open a new WP:CENT discussion to get the wider input necessary for such an approach. - --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you both comment in the right place. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Adler (talk • contribs)

Thanks. (Less criptic note for other users: discussion is taking place at the Villiage Pump.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have created a brief page at User:Cool3/Ireland that details the technical steps that would need to be taken and their effects. I invite others to add their own pros and cons to the page if they so desire. Cool3 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is already being discussed at the Village Pump. If we don't get a global consensus that hiding part of a page title is admissible in principle, in certain cases, then this is not going to be a solution that is stable over 2 years. Simply because this is currently a loophole, and in a few weeks' time this bug will be fixed. I am currently aware of at least 2 substantially different ways to use this bug for mischief, and it will be exploited. Even a narrow global majority to use this feature would erode in such a situation, and currently there is a clear majority against.

Moreover, your new discussion has already been hijacked by two extremists. (Or by one extremist and someone who tried to mirror the extremist to make point; I don't care because the effect is the same.) We are not going to get a constructive discussion there, but we already have one at the Village Pump. Hans Adler 10:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued! The proposal bothers me, but I don't see any hijacking. Am I one of the extremists? Scolaire (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't comment on Cool3's page so obviously I wasn't talking about you. I haven't made up my mind about you. Hans Adler 14:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, on Cool3's page! That's how I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about his discussion on this page. Scolaire (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

But Hans you bring politics in, as in Village Pump quote, "We could disambiguate the island as Ireland (island) and give the state its natural name. But that would, in a sense, support the state's claim to the entire island; just a bit too much so to make me uncomfortable with the idea. " unquote. Politics should stay out of this page at least. If voters have some personal politics, that's a different matter and cannot be measured. This should have nothing to do with political claims, extremists, pov-pushing etc. It's about getting a proper disambiguation between Ireland and Ireland, nothing else. The state does not claim the entire island. Tfz 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You already responded to the sentence you are quoting at the VPP. I felt that wasn't the right place, so I answered in the section above on this page. Sorry if you missed it, perhaps I should have told you. This page is about the best disambiguation structure. If we ignore all politics and internal problems of the pages concerned, it's easy: There are two dominant meanings, the island and the republic. They are about equally important, so per the letter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Ireland should be a disambiguation page. However, the two are very close to each other in meaning, and the state can be seen as a subarticle of the island after which it is named and of which it forms a part. Therefore by the spirit of WP:Disambiguation it's better to put the island in primary position. Nobody looking for the state will be surprised by finding the Island instead.

Putting the state in primary position is justified by neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:Disambiguation. The only reason it would make sense is because we can't agree on which way to disambiguate the state. But at this point politics and pragmatics have already crept in. It makes no sense to choose the second or third best option (I am not sure if Island primary is better than disambiguation primary) because the best option causes unrest, and ignore that this would likely lead to even more unrest.

If Wikipedia had existed before German reunification, the problem Germany/West Germany/East Germany would have been very much analogous to the problem Ireland/[Republic of] Ireland/Northern Ireland. Up to the moment when it became clear that against all bets reunification was going to happen, and that it would happen essentially by annexion, it would have been absurd to put West Germany in primary position. Hans Adler 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that this situation still exists with Korea. john k (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but I felt that in this case the north and south have about equal weight, overall. For the two Germanies, outside an East European or sports context the west generally overshadowed the east, and it was considerably bigger by all reasonable statistical indices. So this seemed closer to a reasonable example. Of course Korea is a general geographic/cultural/... article, not one of the two state articles. But that's a pretty weak argument here. I think nobody here wants to compare Northern Ireland to North Korea. Hans Adler 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The options

I'm not bothered about the outcome of this never-ending debate, but could someone let me know what the options are? I couldn't find them in the archives. Perhaps for the benefit of any new editors who may be interested they should be restated here. Mister Flash (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the options are on the project page if those are the options you mean, but you can also read through the statements which cover many of the options with reasons for and agaisnt them here BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a summary of the options would be useful here; where is the ballot paper? Ok, I've found it. Thanks. Mister Flash (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Option D for me, with Option F a close second .. not that I care one way or the other, you understand. Mister Flash (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, sounds like a good choice to me :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Go on then! How do I vote? Mister Flash (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

lol thats for u to decide, i meant it was a good choice though, i wasnt being sarcastic. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean where do I go to vote on this - where's the ballot paper? Are there any qualifications to meet before you can vote? Mister Flash (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Go back to the project page and the instructions, including how to create a ballot, start under section 2.2. The only qualifier is that you have to have registered before June 1, 2009. // BL \\ (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, yes go to this project page and follow the instructions, if you edit the page then u can basically get the general idea by copying how everyone else has done it and just signing / rating ur prefs. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't listen to BW. He's well known for being a little delusional. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

lol only from time to time :) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually only after he wakes up! Sarah777 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Virginian solution

I note that if you search Wiki for "Virginia" you don't get the town of Virginia, County Cavan. Or the old colony of Virginia. You get the modern state of Virginia as the primary location. The newer state of West Virginia is called just that. Like Northern Ireland. Using this precedent the primary location of "Ireland" should be modern state. Of course unlike Northern Ireland it was West Virginia seceded from the slave state. But that's just a technicality. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The primary usage of "Virginia" is Virginia. The primary usage of "Ireland" is Ireland. So what are you getting at?

Are you from Ireland? Perhaps this is the problem. I am only speculating. I know plenty of people from Ireland here in Canada. All of them just say they are from Ireland. Some, I happen to know, come from Belfast. Others I have no idea whence they came. The ambiguity in the word should be obvious, but perhaps this ambiguous use of "Ireland" is not common in Ireland (the republic) or on Ireland (the island). For example, "London" is usually unambiguous where I live: it refers to London. Sometimes, of course, it is ambiguous and one needs to be clear and say "London, England". This does not mean, however, that Wikipedia has it wrong. "London" is London. On another note, remember that "Ireland" is unambiguous and has only one meaning throughout most of history and that meaning is not found at Republic of Ireland. —Srnec (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, exactly right, and my experience with Irish expats in the US is the same as yours - the ones from Northern Ireland will just say they're from Ireland. Nobody in the present day would say that Wheeling is in Virginia. Because it is not in Virginia. Virginia no longer includes West Virginia. Furthermore, the secession is, I think, significant. Wheeling used to be part of Virginia, but then seceded and is no longer part of Virginia. This is like a territorial adjustment. There were towns which were undoubtedly part of Germany in 1937 but are no longer such. We don't say Wheeling is in Virginia because Wheeling seceded from Virginia and is now part of another state, and Virginia has never been a term which meant a particular territorial expanse, but rather a particular government - up to the 1780s, Virginia claimed a great deal of territory west of the Ohio, for instance. On the other hand, Ireland was a political unity down to 1922, when it was divided into the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland (I realize it's a bit more complicated, in terms of Southern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and so forth). The Irish Free State later changed its name to Ireland. But the older meaning of Ireland, which had been universal down to 1922, persisted. In fact, it was this formerly universal meaning of Ireland which the Irish government itself was trying to point to when it renamed the state in 1937 - it was part of a claim to the island as a whole, not a claim that Ireland only included the 26 counties. The very reason that successive Irish governments rejected terms that they themselves had come up with, like Irish Republic, Eire, and then Republic of Ireland, was largely because the British started using them to refer only to the 26 counties. Now, it seems, you want the term Ireland itself to refer only to the 26 counties. That this should be seen as an anti-British view seems puzzling to me. Certainly the main nationalist parties in the north would not take the view that in the current situation, Northern Ireland is no more part of Ireland than West Virginia is part of Ireland (which is to say, not at all - West Virginia simply isn't part of Virginia. The same cannot be said for Northern Ireland and Ireland. john k (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you can say Ireland was a political unity till 1922. It was all occupied from about 1650 until 1920 (numerous rebellions apart). Why should 270 years of occupation out of 7,000 years of habitation define it's "political" extent? The primary current use of the term (the only relevant one in a naming issue) is to refer to the sovereign country. Sarah777 (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not true that the primary current use is to refer to the state. There are all kinds of situations when "Ireland" refers to the island as a whole. Further, Ireland was, at least theoretically, entirely under the sovereignty of the King of England from the 12th century onwards. There was a lot of political disunity, obviously, until the 16th century, and then numerous rebellions and civil wars thereafter (I would say that the British had pretty clearly imposed their rule on the whole island well before Cromwell, even if that rule was increasingly unstable and weak the further you got from Dublin, and challenged by frequent rebellions), but certainly "Ireland" for all that period referred to the island. Until 1937, at least, "Ireland" still meant only the island - the state was the Irish Free State. So basically we have the last 70 years only during which Ireland has referred to something other than just the island. The state, it's worth noting, did not take the name "Ireland" in order to imply that the six counties were not part of Ireland - quite the opposite, it took the name "Ireland" to suggest its own claim to sovereignty over them. The British, on the other hand, did not accept the name "Ireland" because they thought the same thing - that it involved a claim to sovereignty over the whole island, which they believed a part of was rightfully there's. Which means that really, only since 1998 can anyone really be said to believe that "Ireland" refers to the 26 counties. Even since 1998, I see very little evidence to suggest that "Ireland" primarily refers to the 26 counties, as opposed to the island as a whole. Obviously in contemporary political contexts it often does, and in the context of contemporary international diplomacy, in particular, it usually does. But there are way, way more contexts than that, and in many of those "Ireland" or "Irish" tends to refer to the island as a whole. john k (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Edward Bruce was crowned King of Ireland in 13something when Scotland was trying to open a second front against England after the Battle of Bannockburn. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but basically irrelevant. It doesn't really matter when Ireland became a single polity. The English claimed the overlordship from the 12th century, and gradually turned that claim into reality by the beginning of the 17th century or so, but this isn't so important. What matters is that "Ireland" has always referred to the island as a whole, right down to 1937, or even, arguably, down to 1998, and that it still frequently refers to the whole island. john k (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland always referred to the country and the island, after military subjugation, penal laws, massacre, cultural suppression, and famine the country left the UK in 1922, but UK still held onto 15%. I get awfully bored by these foreigners deliberating what Ireland is and what Ireland is not. Books have been written on this subject by eminent Irish scholars, and will be into the future. Tfz 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that there is little or no ambiguity about what "Virginia" means. Ireland is more comparable to Carolina or Dakota, highly ambiguous. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not like that either. Carolina and Dakota are terms that nobody uses. john k (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Insistence on compromise (or, on keeping the cookie)

It is often said that "compromise" is the situation where both sides give everything to gain nothing. I am concerned at the number of people that seem insistent on effecting a compromise. By all recent counts, option F wins. Option F also happens to be the status quo ante. The community has decided/been instructed to take a formal vote, and to accept the outcome. If the outcome of thst vote is option F, who would be offended by it may just have to live with it. From the various counts, most (but not all) result in F achieving quota (>50%) before all other options are eliminated. In almost all cases, option F has a substantial lead until the reduction of the field from three to two. In these circumstances, it seems inappropriate, even unreasonable, for people to be still suggesting acceptable concessions or proposing compromise positions. I don't mean this in a nasty way, but it seems rather like a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar suggesting scenarios in which they might keep the cookie. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When is the poll! determined? 91.104.5.231 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009" BritishWatcher (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

81.111.114.131 has taken the words out of my mouth. The time for compromise was before the poll was started. I for one would have been delighted to explore any compromise (or workaround) at any time up to 15:00 UTC on 2 August. But there was no talk of compromise then. There was to be a poll, and the results of the poll were to be binding. Once the poll was begun, therefore, there was a moral imperative on those who worked for it to accept the result, and not to try to influence it. As things stand today, Option F not only comfortably wins an STV/IRV ballot, not only has nearly three times as many first preference votes as the second-placed option, but has the largest number of total votes - only 36 out of 150+ failed to give it any preference, compared to 56 for the current second-placed option. If that is the final result, then the community will have been asked, and will have said that it wants the status quo to continue. That must be the outcome, then, however hard some people may find it. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but once it has been agreed to use a democratic method to decide an issue, there is no justification for ignoring or putting aside the clearly-expressed wishes of the community. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have explained the nature of the views of "the community". Tedious repetition of the obvious symptoms of the disease solves nothing. Option F is the least favoured option amongst Irish editors who live in the place the article is about. Because it is a political imposition of the majority pov on En:Wiki. Note that most other Wikis don't make the same mistake. Sarah777 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tedious repitition, did you say? Scolaire (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That was evaluative. I find the constant repetition tedious. We all know that British editors have an overwhelming majority. Using sexist terms isn't evaluative. What is worse, the constant repetition forces me to have to keep reintroducing the facts. Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to say in a subtle way that I view your comment as tedious repitition. I guess you didn't get it. Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calling necessary countering of British pov is tedious, except perhaps to the pushers of British pov. Sarah777 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary countering, it's endless repetition of arguments that simply don't make sense. I can respect that you have a slightly distorted view of certain things, see a clear situation where (almost?) everybody else sees no such thing, see a dispute where there is almost universal consensus. But you should at least react to the feedback you are getting in a meaningful way. If people don't believe you, you are not going to appear more credible by increasing the volume, frequency and amplitude of your accusations. Dim them all down and work on the quality of your arguments. Then you will have a chance to convince a few people. But what you are doing favours the status quo. Is that what you want? That everything stays as it is and nobody has the shadow of a doubt that you feel severely hurt by the fact? Most people would prefer not being hurt in such a way. Hans Adler 10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The majority of Irish editors object to "RoI" as a political imposition; if non-Irish editors cannot understand something that has been exhaustively explained over and over by numerous Irish editors (or don't care, or share the British pov) then that is a problem for the project. Not for me. The only thing that hurts me is biased Administration. Repetition of non-arguments I find tedious, as I said. As for discussion - you will note that the attempts at intimidation and bullying have apparently suceeded in causing a several of those Irish editors to abandon this forum. I have zero beleif in the validity of this process due to the censorship ongoing - but I stay here because I refuse to be intimidated. I don't remotely expect to convert any pov-pushers. Sarah777 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As for engaging in the arguments - the same points have been made a thousand times by the "RoI" supporters; the reason they are wrong have likewise been posted as many times. Are you suggesting I should cut and paste my "official" statement here in response to every repetition of the RoI case? Sarah777 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in policy or the intent of the poll says that there can be no attempt at further resolution on the issue once the poll starts. We should let the poll complete, yes, and we cannot just throw away the results of the poll and feedback as inconsequential, but further discussions towards compromise in light of the poll's results are perfectly fine. --MASEM (t) 12:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there were discussions i.e. people on both sides of the debate attempting to see if they could find a common ground, then it might be described as an "attempt at further resolution on the issue". That's not what we are seeing, but rather what 81 says: a child caught with their hand in the cookie jar suggesting scenarios in which they might keep the cookie. I think it's important to tell it like it is. Scolaire (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no denying there are people entrenched on both sides of the issues. There is a point, however, where they need to realize if they refuse to move, the process might steamroll over them if there's a strong incentive by everyone else to compromise, even if that means to go by the results of the poll. I will say that before the poll, this was less likely to happen (at least, as moderator, I saw no way through it that would have taken the decision out of their hands), but I believe the poll has made some aware of a possible compromise position (backed by non-involved editors) and are willing to discuss it further, but there are still some that are likely not going to change. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem im still prepared to support compromise but it is impossible when Sarah is making her POV claims about one of the options. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem, what strong incentive by everyone else? There's no incentive, and there's no everyone. All there is is a handful of editors who pushed for a poll and then didn't get the result they expected trying to overturn a democratic decision and call it "compromise". It's unaccommodating and unsightly. Scolaire (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good example of an attitude I don't understand. So, up until the vote, we were talking about compromise, and the article title was pretty much a given for change. Then we agree a vote, and compromise discussions continue up to the vote. But once the vote starts, that's it. No more compromise?? Was the intention always to try to convince the community to enter a majority vote and then simply enforce the status quo? Except you've all forgotten that this vote is not a stand-alone vote. It is only binding once the rest of the "process" has been agreed. And given how many editors now feel, I doubt if anything further will be agreed. As I've been saying (hello? anyone out there?), a vote for "F" effectively ends any "process". It ends all discussions of compromise. Editors will retreat to old hardline positions. A vote for "F" solves nothing. It won't result in a 2 year lockdown, it won't result in less edit wars, it won't fix any problems. --HighKing (talk) 11:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, HighKing, I wasn't a part of this process between January and June, so you'll have to show me diffs for when this compromise was discussed or agreed. Between June and August I read the discussion every day, and I never saw any talk of compromise. A poll had been decided on, six (or nine, or twelve) options were agreed, and the status quo was one of them. I never had any sense that the holding of a vote was contingent on us agreeing not to vote for the status quo. Frankly, I find that idea bizarre, and I would have been quick to say so if I had ever had any sense that it was being suggested. So, diffs? Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For instance, here is a post you made to my talk page after I had linked to a statement in favour of option F. Surely, if I was in breach of some agreement that "the article title was pretty much a given for change" you would have said so? On the contrary, you told me you respected my opinion and I was right to state it. That's why I'm puzzled by your assertions now. Scolaire (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

HK is absolutely correct. It appears that people who can't/won't count Irish votes correctly also seem unable to read the Arbcom statement on this process. Sarah777 (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I too was never given the impression that 'Option F' was unacceptable as the consensus (or majority choice). Particulary as it was & is 1 of the 6 options in the Final Poll. In fact it's my 4th (and last) preference. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The status quo was, from Day 1 of the process, always an option. And Sarah, you can repeat it as many times as you like, but there is no overwhelming British majority and there is a majority of Irish (not "Northern Irish British Unionists masquerading as Irish") in favour of Option F. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What you say is factually incorrect. F is the least favoured option with Irish editors. I have demonstrated that clearly. I'd update my spreadsheet but I don't see many Irish votes added in the past few days. Sarah777 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody has demonstrated anything about national preferences. We just have your assertions vs. Ran's, which can't really be tested unless names are named. john k (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Anyone can check the voter's user pages and see who claims to be Irish or British or American. And those who don't say can also be counted. No problem. Sarah777 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that we have different people claiming to have done this and come to different results. john k (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Case proven: the problem is imposition of British pov by weight of numbers, not argument

As attack headlines seem to be tolerated and restored here is seems I'm going to have to provide some needed balance here too. Sarah777 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromise is impossible when Sarah is making such offensive and UNTRUE claims. I have not looked at your latest spreadsheet, can you tell us how many British voters so far and how many total voters? Its obvious to everyone that the majority in this poll aint British so how can "British POV" be the reason F is in the lead? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not updated the spreadsheet since the block as I regard that as having effectively killed off the poll. Out of 21 Irish editors five have now withdrawn so an analysis now is pointless. Sarah777 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Im sure those Irish editors will re-add their votes before the end if F can be beaten. You said yourself on the collab page that the vote is fine if F loses, but its apparently completly invalid if F wins.. What double standards BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No idea what they will do. Ask them. Not my brother's keeper etc. One of the original six editors who withdrew has returned. This is not a collective action. Though I do note that the staged withdrawal of two editors allegedly over my spreadsheet led to it being censored. But six Irish editors withdrawing had no impact on the Moderator. Things like that get noticed. Sarah777 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two withdrew over a specific issue. The others seem to of removed votes in protest over something. I asked the other day what were the demands of the protesters, but i have heard nothing back. How can mods take action if there is nothing to take action over. What can they do??? Its pretty obvious that 5 people moaning and staging a protest can not invalidate a vote which over 150 people have taken part in. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It was run of the mill public domain data, and no editor was singled out for inspection. I couldn't believe the moaning and fuss that was created by some editors at the time. Some pro F editors have analyzed the Irish voters trends, and there was no fuss at all. Tfz 16:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Such counts were only done to prove Sarahs figures wrong, and there is a big differnce between postinng it on this talk page and in users own space. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not classified information, and should not be treated thus, and is quite interesting information, and of enormous value. I think Wikipedia is welcoming to knowledge from all sources. Tfz 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

. Please provide some evidence for your claim. This may be a week old, but it contradicts you. When faced with the option of believing hyperbole from someone who is indignant (rightly or wrongly - I can't and won't be drawn to judge on this) or the actual analysis of the votes, I'm afraid I would have to fall with the facts. Remember that in a preference vote, comparing first preferences alone is misleading, and to suggest that the process is being tainted by bias on the basis of such misleading statements is a failure of good faith. In any case, let the poll run its course. You may not like the outcome, but you will have to live with it and accept it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK IP. For the what, fifth, time: There are not 32 Irish editors voting. That "analysis" is bull. And I have provided the evidence. Look it up. I'm not responding to every IP who comes on here misrepresenting the facts. Sarah777 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm keeping a tally too, which I'll be happy to make available in userspace after the poll concludes. There are more than 21 Irish voters, for a start - and that's not counting Northern Irish as Irish, before that claim is made! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Democracy's alright as long as I win. Your profiling of "British" voters also seems to assume a homogoneous "British" view. I read an article in one of the papers today by a former UK Government cabinet minister and former depute leader of the Labour Party who states that he favours a united Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but this is getting sillier by the minute. One side proclaims that the majority of "Irish" editors supports "F" and the other side proclaims "Not F". Most of us have no way of knowing the basis on which your assessments are made, so, do us all a favour, please: either name names -on your talk page, of course- or stop using a "statistic" that none of the rest of us can verify. The same is true of the "British" votes. Please, please, pretty please, please with sugar on it, please. If explaining is not possible, then I ask that the moderator remove all mention here of which nationality is voting which way. // BL \\ (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless they are from NI, I do not take their politics into account. Bastun is Irish regardless of his attitude and someone from the UK is British. Difficult concept to grasp I know. As for "after the poll" Bastun, why not now? You know of 32 Irish editors who have self-identified on their talkpage? List them. On the put or shut principle. Sarah777 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, one side says a majority of Irish editors supports "Not F", even though "Not F" based on first preference is a misleading description, "No F or F last" might be a more credible claim. The only other opinion in the public space is that, a week ago, F wins among "Irish" voters. The difference is that RA has shown the sequence of counting, and explicitly acknowledges that the selection is "people I think are probably Irish, by some arbitrary criteria". Sarah does not appear to be working through the sequence (as evidenced by the "Not F at first preference" claim), and apparently claims to know the nationality and residence of everyone taking part. Neither measure is precise, however, RA's analysis has at least some semblence of rigor, acknowledges its failings, and restricts any opinion to that which is within its purview. Of course, what we have here is a war, and anyone in the field of information will tell you that the first casualty of war is typically the truth. For this reason, any and all analyses should probably be taken with at least a pinch of salt. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the detail, it boils down to a "they said; no, they didn't" with no agreement on who "they" might be. There is no argument for one being a "better" analysis than another when the basic flaws are shared. Please, may we either have "full, true and plain disclosure" or silence on the matter. // BL \\ (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So sorry if identifying the "not F" vote in a count of 1st preferences upsets the IP community! It is revealing though, isn't it? The last time I ridiculed someone for asking what "not F" means, my comments were deleted. (Ah! Just love the neutral Administration!) So I'll merely say that if folk can vote #1 for one of A through F, "not F" means, astonishingly, those who didn't vote F. Sarah777 (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone with a qualification in a numerate discipline, an active interest in politics, and first-hand experience of organising, counting and analysing STV votes, I think I'm sufficiently qualified point out that "not" counts are meaningless. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Sarah, what I am asking and have been asking is that everyone (who is making claims about nationalistic voting and who) know(s) of (XX) Irish(/British) editors who have self-identified on their talkpage(s), list them. And to quote her directly: "On the put or shut principle", though I wouldn't have said it that way myself. Not an IP, but merely a // BL \\ (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed you wouldn't! But a weariness creeps being asked the same question over and over that you have actually replied to over and over. As for IP claims of superior numeracy - as someone who is obviously better qualified to analyze data than most IPs I point out that in this case the "not" counts explain a lot of the observed bias. Especially comparing the Irish and British "nots". You can be qualified to teach and be experienced at teaching and still be a very poor teacher. Sarah777 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

None of this changes that fact that "not" counts are meaningless in this context, because in a preferential ballot there is no such thing as "not voting". Ballots A-B-C-D-E and A-B-C-D-E-F are equivalent when there are only six options (because you have at most five rounds). Ballot A-B effectively votes for all of C, D, E and F as "joint last" (known as a Langer vote). Counting only at first preference eliminates all those options where someone has voted for the option at second preference. It is also misleading by virtue of the fact that people can select more than one option. It's not unknown for candidates which have a large number of first preference votes to fail to achieve quota, or for candidates with low first preferences to achieve quota on second and third preferences (I have been involved in a count where this happened). Your numbers are unattested and unscientific. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a correct definition of a "Langer vote". A Langer vote is a deliberate way to cast a valid vote that only expresses some preferences in a compulsory full preference system by exploiting loopholes in the relevant legislation - usually by repeating numbers. It's not a general term for all votes that don't specify full preferences in other systems. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent). @Sarah: I don't think I said anywhere I'd counted 32 Irish? Up as far as the vote cast by Kernel Saunters, I make it as 28 easily identifiable Irish voters (as in, their userpage either now or in the past said they were Irish). @BL: If you've got email enabled I'd be happy to send you this list later, but I'm not publishing it on WP till after the voting concludes. I'll do so after September 13, in userspace. @anon-IP: a) Please register. b) Your analysis is quite correct. A tally of "not F" votes is meaningless without also including a tally of "not A", "not B", etc. c) Let's not go calling anyone a Langer, now ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I can count 30, although I haven't visited all their userpages, so I may be wrong. But it is way more than 21 in any case. Fmph (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

@Bastun - I've email enabled .. can you send it to me please. --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Moderator / Process / Outcome

How many moderators are there and who are they? Is the outcome of the poll! binding? Is there any further "process" involved? 91.106.31.220 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem plus Random Unknowns/"no"/"yes" Sarah777 (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, what do you mean by bias? 91.106.31.220 (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As listed on the project page, there are two - User:Masem and someone else who's turned up so little that I can't remember his/her name... The outcome of the process as a whole (not just the poll) is binding for two years. And there is more "process" - there will be discussion/agreement/consensus on related issues, such as in-article linking, titles of articles with 'Ireland' or 'Republic of Ireland' currently in the name, titles of templates, and so on. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You think? As it stands, I predict the rest of the process stalemating. Although I'd love to be wrong... --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Britain

For all those moaning about the input of "British" users in this poll, I find it slightly ironic that the above link is, guess what, a disambiguation page. Quite rightly to, as there is significant ambiguity as to what "Britain" means, quite similarly to "Ireland" in fact. If there was some perfidious Albion movement on wikipedia, surely "Britain" would be a redirect pointed to the United Kingdom article? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also Great Britain is the article on the island keeping the prime spot rather than the former state Kingdom of Great Britain having it, or todays United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd accept "Ireland" as a dab page. It eliminates the pov problem. Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike "Ireland", "Britain" is neither a formal name for a state, or the unambiguous or even common name for the same island, so the argument to do the same for both is weak. MickMacNee (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but Great Britain is the name of the island and a common name for the state and the island has the prime spot with links at the top to the state / previous Kingdom of Great Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't think Scotland is in Britain, well it was not once, when did it join? Not a great analogy, but see the point you are trying to make. How come Great Britain points to the UK. They are not one in the same thing, Isle of Wight is not in GB, but it's in the UK. Actually I am beginning to think that Great Britain is not an island, and also, that Ireland is not an island, and that Ireland is an ancient country. Tfz 12:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain is an article on the island. The lead and hatnote say as much. The sovereign state is "United Kingdom ...", for which the only other acceptable short form is "Britain" (no "Great") - which in any case is non-preferred, for reasons whose origins are not unrelated to this debate. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Coins of Ireland

So many great minds here - many of whom have a WP:pov. They have a chance to set up a round table pow-wow and get this exciting article sorted out pre-vote-outcome. And then move onto categories. 91.106.31.220 (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet another analysis, non-refundable

I have tallied all the votes, and worked out the preferences based on Condorcet rules, to create yet another view of the vote as it stands. Like all others, it should be taken with a dose of salt, not least because this counts the votes using a method other than that which will actually be used. It therefore provides a useful contrast.

Strictly speaking, a winner must defeat all other candidates, so it transposes the six-way preferences into fifteen two-way contests. The contest between A and B is "number of votes ranking A above B" vs "number of votes ranking B above A". This gives 15 scorelines, 5 for each option. The winner is the option which beats all others. Those items that are not marked on a given ballot are considered equal to each other, and lower than the preferences on the ballot, so an A-B-C ballot considers D, E and F equal last.

With these rules, F is the winner, beating all other options clearly. The rest fall in D-E-C-B-A. The only pairing that is anywhere near close is D vs E. The most convincing result is D beating A by 114-19. The most convincing result for F is also against A, where it wins 114-29. Contrast this with the actual counting method, in which D is (currently) eliminated at the second round. I am reluctant to put forward the actual pairwise margins for D, E and F, since this information coupled with knowledge of how others have voted leaves it open to tactical voting or manipulation.

What one can read into this is that there is general leaning in favour of keeping Ireland about the island, and not the state - without accounting for the distribution of voters as regards identity and politics (which I am not inclined to attempt). A final reminder that, like all analyses of the event in-progress, it is by nature imperfect. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So what further "process" is required after the vote! closes? 91.106.31.220 (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We have to agree on how to dab Ireland in articles text, in some cases using Republic of Ireland. There are general guides on when to use it and when not to but we need a clearly defined set of guidelines on when it can and cant be used. Also there are other Ireland articles, that have to be taken into account. For example Politics of Ireland or Culture of Ireland. IF F wins then there needs to be some ground rules of when ROI can be used in the title like Politics of the Republic of Ireland is currently used. If E wins and Ireland becomes a dab page then there has to be very clear guidelines on when a link should point to the island or the state (obvious in many cases but not in all). If C wins then wed have to agree on how to word the new article. Those are the sorts of things that have to be covered but there could be other things as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If F wins and the status quo side does nothing but hoot triumphantly this nightmare will never end. You will never get agreement on those kinds of ground rules, if F wins, BritishWatcher. People on both sides are intransigent. That's why C, D, or E are the only possible solutions. I think that this Collaboration Project could achieve good ground rules for the use of RoI as a disambiguationr — but from what I hear from many people, that will never happen if the article about the state remains at RoI. (Masem, at least, I think, understands this.) -- Evertype·✆ 12:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This kind of blackmail or claims that nothing will happen if F wins simply makes it harder to compromise because theres no way im prepared to withdraw my support for F in such an environment. As ive said elsewhere, E is not a compromise.. D is, followed very far down the line by C but certainly not E. If F loses i think u will hear just as much "feedback" from those who oppose F celebrating as you would from those who support F if it won, probably more because their constant moaning will have led to change, and they will move on to their next target. British Isles articles will probably come under far more attacks than normal for a start.

Some have a problem with the article names, it went on for many years. You took it to arbcom, they pushed for a process to be set up, people set up the collaboration project, it went on for 6 months with no progress, we agreed on a poll, you yourself were one of the leading people pushing for the poll to start ASAP, the community is now deciding if they see a need for the status quo to change. If F wins.. the verdict is in. Under no circumstances if F loses can i imagine Republic of Ireland being kept as a title, yet the double standards are clear when quite a few feel we should simply ignore the verdict and adopt another option instead if F wins. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BW - there are no such inferences if A, B, C, D, E or F "wins". This vote is on the titles of three articles ONLY (Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Ireland (disambiguation)). It is NOT about content of any article or about the titles of any other articles/categories, etc. That will be decided at another time (more than likely through consensus as normal). There is no need to rewrite any article based on what "wins" this vote. The vote is only about the location of the articles owing to technical limitations of the encyclopedia, it is NOT about their content.

@Evertype - for someone who wanted a vote so badly, you sure changed your tune once the tallies started to come in. Now it's all "compromise"? I thought you had declared that that was impossible? Regardless of what it returns, the result of vote will be binding for two years - as you, of all people, had not only agreed to but had insisted upon before. Changing your tune now is not only disingenuous, it is inviting trouble later. The plan was a vote and a vote it is whatever the result may be. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew that F would win if it went to a poll. Agree with Sarah's basic analysis about the weight of UK voters cementing that outcome, and I said it very early on myself. Saying that, I don't believe it's conspiracy, it's merely because generally in the UK they call sovereign Ireland by RoI when they are not using Eire, God created a beautiful country, but sure messed up when he created the neighbours.) Joking aside, much of the input on this page has been politically driven, ArbCom has washed it's hands, proved itself to be a bunch of amateurs and dilettantes which they are, and done Wikipedia down to a sham. Tfz 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the current scientific theory is that if God created your beautiful country around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, then he first did so as part of a peninsula, which separated from the continent as the ice melted and the water levels rose, and then split into Ireland and Great Britain. The first settlers arrived when it was still a peninsula, and apparently they came to Cornwall and Ireland first because they followed the coast line. Hans Adler 14:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an old joke I picked up in Scotland some years ago from a stand-up comic, and believe me the language was a lot stronger, and it pertained to the Sasanach. But at the 'end of the day', it's a piece of levity. Tfz 14:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well those are the things i thought we would be discussing after the poll. If F loses then there is some work to do before the articles are moved. I dont want the articles moved until after we have clear guidelines on things like that. If A or C wins, then the article must be written and agreed to before the move takes places. If E wins every single link to Ireland must be checked and directed to the right page before articles are moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No one dictates this project, consensus does, though far from perfect. Tfz 13:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

These are all reasonable things that must be taken into account before the move happens. There is no way we can just create a dab page at Ireland without sorting all the links, and we need to ensure they are going to the right place. I do not want to see general Ireland topics / island matters being directed towards the sovereign state article. You think F will win this vote so most of it will not matter anyway if you are right. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"If F wins and the status quo side does nothing but hoot triumphantly this nightmare will never end." What grounds have you for suggesting the status quo side will hoot? If F wins and the change side does nothing but cry 'foul' and demand change anyway this nightmare will never end. There is ample evidence for that. As far as I can see only Rannpháirtí, who is status quo, has tried to initiate discussion on the other issues, here. The response from the change side was "I do not know - serious damage has been done" here, and "Absolutely not. Pretty cheeky/disrespectful to stitch us up on this part of the current process and expect to continue with the rest" here. The remainder of the section is just another series of rants about why this vote is wrong and the status quo side have been dishonourable by voting for their choice. As BritishWatcher says, if you want us to behave reasonably you have to treat us with respect. You could start by respecting the decision of the community. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

People like BritishWatcher are already doing it. Indeed he accuses me of blackmail, when in fact I have been arguing for continued discussion and compromise since we first saw tallies appear. BritishWatcher seems to think that I am going to organize some sort of revolt. I'm not. I merely observe that if the status quo does not change, nothing will improve for the Ireland articles on this encyclopaedia. Therefore I even abandoned my own preferred Options, A and B, and have encouraged everyone who has voted A, B, or F to consider the wisdom of choosing compromise even now. And by that I mean the whole package. I can see nothing but continued polarization and woe for the Ireland articles if we don't actually learn from the growing results, and work together. -- Evertype·✆ 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But first, Evertype, you have to learn: working together is not about confrontation, or shouting, or telling other people what they "have" to do. BritishWatchers post, which you called "triumphalist hooting", was a thoughtful analysis of what needed to be done, depending on the final result. Your response was wholly inappropriate. No wonder he accused you of blackmail - emotional blackmail at least! If you abandoned your original first preferences that's your choice. If you can get down off your high horse and show other people some respect, people might start to listen to you. Scolaire (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the posting I was referring to. I'm sick of all of this mean-spiritedness, I really am. I want the Ireland articles to be the winners. Not people on either of the frakking factions. That is why I gave up A and B. That is why I ask other A and B voters to think of the wisdom of giving up A and B. And that only works of the F voters think of the wisdom of giving up F. This isn't high-horsiness, Scoláire, old chum. This is how people get one with each other. -- Evertype·✆ 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A and B get screwed in this poll, rightfully in my opinion because they are horrible options so giving up on options that are going to fail is hardly a compromise on the same level people giving up on F would be. E is not a compromise. F involves two things - the Republic of Ireland title and the island at Ireland. Moving to option E does away with both of those things.. it is just not a compromise at all. D is the only option possible for compromise but i too am so sick and tired of the crap on this page i doubt compromise is possible. The vote will decide the location of the articles for 2 years. If F wins with a reasonable majority i can see no compromise happening, the vote must be respected. If it wins with one or two votes then there will need to be attempts at compromise.. But picking the runner up is not a compromise when many supporters of F have D as their second option which is the middle ground. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You say E is not a compromise, but that is only because you will not move from your entrenched POV that the island is the primary topic. ArbCom agreed that neither was the primary topic. I may believe that the State is the primary topic, but I am satisfied that the argument that the island is just as primary are as sound as the arguments that the state is primary. So all I see here from you, BritishWatcher, is a neat way to dig your heels in so you can "win", never mind anybody else's view. You don't want to compromise, which is why you won't discuss it. It's disappointing. -- Evertype·✆ 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense whatever. Firstly, if Arbcom had wanted to mandate that neither usage was a primary usage, then they had the power to do so. They clearly haven't, since our votes include a number of options for leaving the island at Ireland, as well as an option for moving the article on the state to Ireland. Secondly, the reason this is not a compromise has nothing to do with "entrenched POV." What it has to do with is the fact that it has none of the same features as Option F - supporters of F (which is, again winning the poll) get nothing that they want - neither the island at Ireland, nor the state at Republic of Ireland, nor the disambiguation page at Ireland (disambiguation). It is not a midpoint between F and B - it is closer to B. And B is getting crushed in the actual voting, while F is, again, winning. F may, of course, be wrong, but that is entirely independent of whether E is an appropriate "compromise". john k (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There's that "compromise" nonsense again. E may be "an appropriate compromise", but F is leading. You can't take a poll which you have agreed shall be binding, and then ignore the result because you don't like it. If E is an appropriate compromise, this should have been decided before the poll. If F is so unacceptable, why is it on the poll? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rannṗáirtí, I wanted a vote to happen so something would happen. I expected dialogue and I expected people to work together during the vote, to take into consideration the long-term chances of getting something that would be stable. It should be clear by now that even if F were to be chosen for two years, it would be nothing but a temporary solution. I would like something more robust. -- Evertype·✆ 12:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever actually seen a vote on Wikipedia before? But basically your point is that you wanted a vote because you thought F would lose. Now that F is winning, the vote doesn't have enough "dialogue." john k (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Draft for option C?

Has anyone written a draft of how the "Ireland" article would look like under option C? (If so, it might be worth linking it in the description of option C.) --___A. di M. 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as im aware no one has started writing one or has exmples of what it would say. Best other current example is probably the China article. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Most people are voting F and E; what does this mean?

• F— A lot of folks think there's nothing that's wrong with the article configuration as it stands. They're entitled to that view. But those of us who have been trying to deal with the constant paralysis that the Ireland articles on this encyclopaedia have been in know better. Indeed every time before this poll when people have been talking about a "package deal". moving the state article from RoI has always figured as a probability.
• E— A lot of folks who vote for E, I think, do so because they recognize that the problem is that neither the Island nor the State can be proved to be "primary", and this is WIkipedia's most natural way of disambiguating.

That's why these two options are in the lead. F is not winning because of some ridiculous British POV wanting to slap down the Irish, either. By no means. F is an expression of natural conservatism ("the status quo is not so bad"). But it looks to me like half the voters aren't giving F any weight at all. 167 total voters less 92 F votes is 75 voters who don't like the status quo. That's 45% of voters who would like something else against 55% who are OK with the status quo. That is by no means a landslide. it suggests to me that we ought to continue thinking and working together. -- Evertype·✆ 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And this is what I've been trying to point out - if there is a much clearer agreement on a second preference (like, 90% or more) compared to something that's just barely ahead via first preferences alone, then that is a good foundation to go ahead and to not blindly accept the first preference. But there's still a month on the poll and more discussion after it. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, there are types of poll that allow for second preferences to be more strongly considered. They should have been chosen when you all were deciding the vote. Secondly, who is to say that the status quo would result in any greater problems than any given change? Thirdly, 120-odd voters put F as one of their choices, not 92. john k (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't use a different counting method ; the core data - the order of user prefs - is still the same and thus can be adapted; and because we are not a democracy or any other form of government, we're allowed to bend the rules of process should it be consensus to do so. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This post-poll discussion won't be about the article titles, right, Masem? I mean, the poll page says this is binding for two years. We should be told if it is not. And as John K says, there is a chosen method for tallying these votes which takes into account voters' preferences. Why does it seem that F-as-first-preference voters are having their preferences discounted in favour of the second preferences of other voters? You cannot change the vote-counting method now: many F voters would probably rather remove their second preferences than have them used to negate their first preference (based on a "clearer agreement on a second preference"). 216.8.129.60 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. People would certainly have voted differently depending on the tallying method. Maybe not enough to change the results, but it's unfair to change the rules when people have already voted. Also, this seems like an effort to figure out a way of counting votes to get a desired result. What would be the justification for changing to a different method besides "the current method is coming to a result some people don't like"? john k (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "But those of us who have been trying to deal with the constant paralysis that the Ireland articles on this encyclopaedia have been in know better." - On the contrary. Counting only members of the WP:IECOLL project, "F" 'wins' by the same margin as what we see in the vote as a whole. Members of WP:IECOLL (and Irish voters in general) differ from the main body of voters in that they rank "E" last. (Among members of the WP:IECOLL project, "E" receives only 2 first-preferences votes out of 18 valid votes cast and is eliminated in the first round. "D" is the second-placed option among members of WP:IECOLL with 7 votes out of 18 after all transfers have been made - starting off with only 4 first preference votes compared to 8 for "F". "E", as you know, is your first preference.)
• "F is an expression of natural conservatism." - I don't recall any of the position statements that spoke in favour of "F" doing so because of "natural conservatism". You are setting up a "straw man".
• "45% of voters who would like something else..." No so. 77% of voters express a preference for "F" one way or another (127/164 ballots), more so than any other option. There are six options on the ballot: five of them cannot be conflated to mean "anti-F" just because you are. (If we did so, then we could equally say that 85% of voters were "anti-E", 84% are "anti-C" and 92% are "anti-D".)
• "...moving the state article from RoI has always figured as a probability. ...we ought to continue thinking and working together." You, more so that maybe anyone else, pressed for a vote because you declared that agreement was impossible. Now, when your favoured option looks unlikely to "win", it suddenly is? You are being disingenuous.

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

+1. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has taken part in the poll I strongly object to my vote being considered in any context other than the terms the vote was made (i.e. To be tallied using Single Transferable Vote and for the result to be binding for two years.) If the poll is to be thrown out in its entirety that is one thing but to try and reverse engineer a solution by interpreting people's votes in a way they were never intended would be completely wrong. Who is going message the (likely) 200+ people saying "we didn't like the result so we've decided your vote means something else", will that really cause the situation to improve. Guest9999 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There are about a dozen people who have only voted F, whilst this could be for a number of reasons its likely they know F will make it into the final there for their second vote will not count and is not needed. Now if before the end of the vote i need to switch my vote i will, but it is totally unacceptable to be looking at second preference votes to decide a different outcome in such a way when there is a clear winner without informing those who ONLY voted for F, otherwise those people are not having their vote count. Im all for compromise on reasonable grounds but i totally oppose this idea for rigging the outcome against the verdict of the vote and if people think doing that will bring about peace by silencing one group of people you will simply stir up another group, myself included. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how we count the votes.

First preferences - F wins.

First and second preferences - F wins

1st,2nd and 3rd preferences - F wins

1st,2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences - F wins

1st,2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th preferences - F wins

Or we can look at it the other way, at options which are unranked by the least number of people in which case, guess what? F wins! Time people faced up to reality instead of trying to invent novel ways to rig the vote to produce a desired outcome. The voting rate has slowed down to just a couple of votes a day. There are probably only going to be 60 votes at most cast before the end and F currently leads any other option by at least 30 votes in a showdown. So if we want to talk compromise and the option that most people "can live with" it's F based on the votes and no amount of retconning nonsense on WP:IDONTLIKEIT ground will change that. Valenciano (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC

First preferences - Not F wins.

First and second preferences - Not F wins

1st,2nd and 3rd preferences - Not F wins

1st,2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences - Not F wins

1st,2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th preferences - Not F wins

Do I have to point out everything to you guys? Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you do the same tally for Not A, Not B, Not C, etc., so it's actually meaningful? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Not F" is not an option. You could say exactly the same thing for every other option. john k (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah. On the insulting v non-insulting titles F v not F captures the essence of the debate. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For that to be a statistically meaningful comparison, comparing Not F with F, one would have to divide the Not F tally by five. The first thing any student of statistics learns is that you must compare like-for-like. This is not like-for-like, since Not F has five different "chances" for every one F "chance". If you wanted to make this comparison, you should have proposed Not F as an actual option in the poll. Then the comparison would be fair.

What you you are showing is that, in the first round, no option has a majority. Fortunately for us, under the pre-agreed STV system we keep going until a plurality becomes a majority, taking into account second preferences. So keep going, and what happens? Rockpocket 01:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding finding any article title insulting, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Guest9999 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Typical F-spin again Guest9999. Who said that the article title is insulting? This is a mantra concocted by certain editors around here and they are usually pro-F, and has no foundation whatsoever. A process of disinformation, no doubt. This BS should should not be entertained, sadly the page is full of silly nonsense. Tfz 11:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah said "On the insulting v non-insulting titles F v not F captures the essence of the debate". What did you think this meant? 216.8.132.24 (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's not insulting, then what is the problem with it? Fmph (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that why you voted 'F'. It's not thae name, and is far from it. Tfz 12:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Get real, Sarah tells us all the time the term is insulting and offensive, its the main justification used to change the title because some people dont like it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

One editor, now find me where I said it was insulting. 'One swallow does not make a summer'.Tfz 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Is what "why you voted 'F'"? Sorry. I don't understand. I know RoI is not the name of the country. Just like Ireland (state) is also not the name of country. I'm quite happy to have the country at Ireland, which is it's name. And your point is? Fmph (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You asked who said it, i told you. Ive never said all people opposed to F do so for that reason, but its one of the main reasons we hear most of the time, and thats because Sarah is saying it often. So can you tell me the reasons we are supposed to change the status quo which has lasted over 5 years then please?BritishWatcher (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, an encyclopedia is supposed to be educational, and calling something by a wrong name is uneducational in my experience. It's a lazy-man's way of doing things, and doesn't server the reader. What I find most perplexing is the resistance to a simple Wikipedian article title correction taking up so much time and energy, with just about half the world fighting over it, and how British/Irish politics is featuring so much on the simple issue. Tfz 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The term is well known internationally and the Irish government itself uses it often. We can not have the state at Ireland because there is an island called Ireland which had the name long before the current sovereign state came on the scene. I agree too much time is wasted on this matter, we should just accept the status quo and move on with our lives. The intro makes very clear Ireland is the name of the state and the ROI is sometimes used for disam purposes but is not an official title. As has been said before many country articles are not at their correct titles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chicken and egg again. Ireland is also a country. You are arguing from a political point of view, the real world is different. Tfz 13:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the two Irelands it is very very clear which came first and which had the name Ireland first, it certainly was not the current sovereign state formed in the 20th century. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a clear case POV, Ireland is called after the country/people/culture, whatever, not the island. Read it up here at Wikipedia. These political arguments can go on forever, and shan't be around that long. Tfz 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@Tfz: "an encyclopedia is supposed to be educational, and calling something by a wrong name is uneducational in my experience." So, from that, we can take it you'll be campaigning to have the name of every country not at its official name to be moved to its official name? And for Derry to be moved to Londonderry? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Point scoring? Eh! Tfz 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this point scoring? You should be willing to follow your own arguments to their logical conclusions. If you are not willing to do that, then you are just engaging in special pleading. john k (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is political contention around the Derry/Londonderry naming issue, there should be none around the 'Constitution of Ireland' name. Saying that, there is a lot of political stuff on this page, which demeans Wikipedia imo. I don't have much problem with F, but it is not my first choice, nor is it my second. Tfz 15:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My analysis of the reasons for most of the votes for F and E (conservatism and simple disambiguation in the case of conflict) are based on common sense and in consideration of the fact that many of not most of the voters are from other realms of the Wikipedia, and are not burdened with the baggage the rest of us seem to be. -- Evertype·✆ 12:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And you know, I don't think that if A or B were winning I would have come to a different view. They may be my preferences, but what I'm looking at is the intense polarization of the two "factions". That's why I call for people of good will to put aside "winning" and "losing" and to choose the compromise forms for the name of this one article. And I believe that if A or B were winning I would have by now come to the same conclusion. To my mind (and evidently to Masem's), it is this which is what we are learning from the poll. -- Evertype·✆ 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

D is the only option im prepared to compromise to or C if i need to switch my vote because F is going to lose. Its up to others if they wish to compromise or not, but if thats not what people want then the vote will stand and must be respected. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous. "E" has been your long-standing preference for over a year now. I don't know why you originally voted "A/B", but changing your vote to "E" reflects your long-expressed preference. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, A and B are my preference and have always been. I argued for E lo these many months because I saw in it the only hope for compromise. I voted A/B at the beginning of this vote in order to express my real preference at the outset (I believe the State to be the primary topic). I have not been surprised to see that it (or F) would be divisive. -- Evertype·✆ 12:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall that but am not going to look into the archives. You did start off an "F sympathiser" long long ago, no? Anyway, F, divisive? Two out of three voters place it in their top three preferences (more than any other option). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Social 101: never base judgments on "common sense" (it is neither "common" nor "sensible"). Instead compare WP:IECOLL-voters vs. non-WP:IECOLL voters (i.e. voters "burdened with the baggage" vs. voters "from other realms of the Wikipedia"). "F" scores the same in both groups. The notable difference between the two groups is that "E" is ranked in second-place by voters "from other realms of the Wikipedia" whereas voters most familiar with the topic rank it last. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And that proves my thesis very well. Uninvolved editors either choose the status quo ("What's the problem?") or choose a standard disambiguation strategy ("If either could be primary, make the name a disambiguation page and mark both the topics".). And that is what I think this poll is telling us. Since there is a problem, we ought to consider standard disambiguation stragegy. (Except of course that BritishWatcher wants to veto that. It's hard to consider that good faith.) -- Evertype·✆ 12:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The vote at the moment is telling us a clear majority do not have a problem the status quo. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "thesis" was that "those of us who have been trying to deal with the constant paralysis .. know better [and so don't vote for "F"]". The reality is that there is not difference between those of us who "know better" and the wider voting public vis-a-vis option "F". Changing your "thesis" mid-gallop is a sign that you lack objectivity. (As much as I enjoy reading Madame Evertype's mind-reading parlour games.) (Adds: removed uncivil remarks per my talk page.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It might be interesting to see which options win from a reduced field - do a full count, drop the winning option, do the full count again. Repeat for each extra rank you want to decide. This will see where all those F votes would go otherwise. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the main result is that F and E are the remaining options at the final round, however, when you withdraw option F, the winner is D. 15 ballots (consisting of F only) are wasted before the off, and another 12 are wasted along the way (most when A and B are eliminated). As a sign of the lack of support for A and B, when you remove options D, E and F, C achieves a majority of the remaining votes on first preferences alone. It becomes clear that the viable candidates are D, E and F. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to drop any idea that even suggests E is a standard approach, because it is not. Option E actually goes against the disambiguation guideline which specifically bars pages with only two entries, in favour of hatnotes, and to use a dab page in this way also totally ignores the fact that Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) are not two separate and unrelated topics. To presume that every single reader search for Ireland falls neatly into one of those titles that a reader can easily pick from a 2 choice dab page is craziness. And padding that page out to have three or more entries that are not ambiguous with the term to get around the rules, is a cop out. That is why E has always been an unsatisfactory solution, both in terms of the rules and common sense, because it is borne out of the stalemate of two sides who, because they cannot 'win' the battle, are content with a solution that pisses both 'sides' off equally. It is a totally unenlightened solution, which certainly isn't all about helping the reader, although this whole process pretending to be about applying the naming rules is pretty daft, when people can vote for both B and D in their ballot. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland as it is now conforms to wp:common, and is an article about the thirty county country. The island could get a separate geographical article, in keeping with the norm. Tfz 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A dab page would not have merely two entries. It would also include settlements called "Ireland", or people whose surname is "Ireland", with the two primary uses highlighted at the top. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

When the third etc options would be the intended target of a tiny percentage of visitors to Ireland, that would fall into the 'cop out' category. It would still be a two option page for all intents and purposes. Any other tertiary meaning would remain at Ireland (disambiguation). MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No. In such a case there would be one dab page. What you are suggesting is what option E proposes. Or, what you are proposing is a separate page to E, which I suspect is a proposal you make merely to strike down its uselessness. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you are on about. Option E is a two option dab page filled full of low priority targets to hide this basic fact. MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This assertion is false. -- Evertype·✆ 07:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What 'norm'? There is no 'norm'. Fmph (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

An Ireland article that covers the "32-county country" is possible (and IMHO a most desirable possibility) under the status quo. Specifically "island" stuff can be spun out to an Ireland (island) article. It had been mentioned that the Republic of Ireland is about more that just the state - where it is IMHO it is for the most part quite pointless duplication of content from a main Ireland article (e.g. geography, wildlife, flora, history, sport, culture, langauge, etc.) Better one proper "Ireland" article, one about the state and spin off an clearly geographic article for those interested somewhere else. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This would appear to be option B. Or maybe C. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Status quo. Just spin it out without affecting the ROI article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@MickMacNee: Option E simply moves the content at Ireland (disambiguation)—which contains more than two entries—to Ireland because it recognizes that neither topic is primary. -- Evertype·✆ 07:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't people ever read what others type? Yes, it contains more than two entries. But it shouldn't - the sham arrangement is there to pretend it is not a violation of WP:DB. MickMacNee (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do feel free to explain how you overlooked the following:

• Ireland, Bedfordshire, a village in England
• Ireland, Indiana, United States
• Ireland, West Virginia, United States
• Ireland Island, Bermuda, the northwesternmost island in the chain which comprises Bermuda
• New Ireland (island), in Papua New Guinea
• Alexander Ireland, a British welterweight professional boxer
• Andy Ireland, a US Representative from Florida
• Anthony Ireland, an ex-Zimbabwean cricketer
• Betty Ireland, the current Secretary of State of West Virginia
• Brian Ireland, the drummer for Something Corporate
• Colin Ireland, a British serial killer known as the "Gay Slayer" because he specifically murdered gay men
• Doug Ireland, an American journalist and blogger
• Innes Ireland, a Scottish military officer, engineer, and race car driver
• Jill Ireland, an English actress
• John Ireland:
  • John Ireland (politician), a Governor of Texas
  • John Ireland (archbishop), a university founder from St Paul, Minnesota
  • John Ireland (composer), an English composer
  • John Ireland (actor), an Academy Award-nominated actor and sometime film director
  • John de Courcy Ireland, an Irish maritime historian and political activist
• Kathy Ireland, an American supermodel, actress, author, and entrepreneur
• Kylie Ireland, an American pornographic actress and radio show host
• Mike Ireland, a long track speed skater
• Patricia Ireland, a U.S. administrator and feminist
• Stephen Ireland, Association footballer for Manchester City F.C. and retired from Republic of Ireland national football team
• William Henry Ireland, a forger of would-be Shakespearean documents and plays
• RMS Empress of Ireland which sank in 1914 with a loss of 1012 lives

There is certainly a need for a disambiguation page. Since neither of the two main topics can be "proved" to be primary, it seems perfectly reasonable (and within normal Wikipedia practice) to me to name the disambiguation page Ireland and then to use the specific Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) as articles about the island and the state. -- Evertype·✆ 12:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it one last time, read what I wrote. From the beginning. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I read it. You said "Option E actually goes against the disambiguation guideline which specifically bars pages with only two entries, in favour of hatnotes, and to use a dab page in this way also totally ignores the fact that Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) are not two separate and unrelated topics.". I don't believe that you are correct. There are many more than two entries at Ireland (disambiguation) though the top two are the island and the state. Nothing is "barred" on the Wikipedia, either. Option E is NOT a bad idea. BritishWatcher opposes it, only because the island (in his view) "deserves" to be at the top level. That's POV. There are good arguments for both the island and the state to be at the top level. It is perfectly reasonable to move Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland and then to disambiguate the island and the state with parentheticals. This is perfectly within ordinary Wikipedia nomenclature practice. -- Evertype·✆ 19:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It has long been my view that "pissing off both sides" a little is better than having one side (EITHER SIDE) "win" and one side (EITHER SIDE) "lose". -- Evertype·✆ 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OMFG. Implementing a decent solution that doesn't go against policy is better than any half baked idea that what pisses people off equally is a good idea. The disambiguation page only has hundreds of unimportant entries on it to HIDE the fact that it is for all intents and purposes a TWO OPTION page, and thus it is NOT a perfectly normal practice that can solve this issue without looking totally abnormal. It's not even a reasonable implementation of IGNORE, for the reasons already given in the first post. It's a flat out bad solution, you don't even support it for its standalone merits or its benefit to readers, but for internal politics reasons. God, the very idea that we have to waste the time of 99% of readers wanting to know about Ireland by forcing them onto that pointless junkheap of a page just to satisfy internal politics is reprehensible. It would actually be better for the reader to be upfront and honest, and actually use a bare two option menu page, with a See Also section to all the other junk on a proper (disambiguation) page. If you are going to IGNORE policy, do it right. MickMacNee (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting read. I'm split on this. Creating a dab page, which will likely piss off our readership who just want to read about Ireland fer gawd's sake, is not a good idea. OTOH, what "Ireland" do they want to read about? And OTOOH, a solution that pisses off only the editors on both "sides" of this, and pisses them all off equally, while leaving our readers to get on with learning about stuff - that seems like a pretty good solution to me. But we're still left with the problem that if someone types "Ireland" into the search box, do they mean the island or the country? (My bias is that the piece of land was there long before people came along and mucked the whole thing up) Franamax (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that MickMacNee is being uncivil, from his "OhMyFuckingGod" to his lecturing me on what Wikipedia principles are. The fact is that Option E simply moves Ireland (disambigation) to Ireland, moves Ireland to Ireland (island), and moves Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). It does not do anything to the content of these articles. It's just about the name. It's pretty much balderdash for MickMacNee to claim again and again that Ireland (disambiguation) has only two options on it. And unless he wants to wikilawyer, I don't think that trying to claim that moving Ireland (disambigation) to Ireland would be a travesty of Wikipedian principles. Once again we see somebody who'd rather win than have some peace. I firmly, firmly believe that if we were to go for Option E for two years the rancour would be gone. And I believe that if we were to go for A, B, or F, the bad blood, the backbiting, and the nastiness will continue. And continue. And continue. -- Evertype·✆ 00:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Option E is not a good option in many peoples minds so i do not know why you think E will create peace on earth. If E is chosen then we have to go through every single link to Ireland and decide if its talking about the island or the state, this is going to be difficult in some cases. E is not a compromise, it degrades the island of Ireland which is the clear primary topic. Option D is the only good compromise which both sides could live with happily and means both sides get half of what they want. (E supporters get the title changed, F supporters keep the island at the prime spot). that seems fair to me. Many voters of F have not put E as their second option, its behind option D.

Also i do not think its a good idea to give into a few people simply because they raise hell, its a bit like giving into terrrorism and is usually counter productive because it gives them a reason to push on about other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'Where ignorance is bliss, it is foolish to be wise'. Tfz 01:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

BI, can I recommend removing the "giving in to terrorism" statement, its is completely unnecessary and provocative. You might also acknowledge that Evertype is trying to make the valid point that notF and notA/B are more likely to produce a settlement that victory for the extremes of either side. --Snowded ^TALK 01:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Im not calling anyone a terrorist or saying it would be giving into terrorism. But it is exactly the same principle. Changing the status quo which has worked well for over 5 years in a hope it will bring about peace on earth is not likely to work. I accept some people feel strongly about option A B and F, but im saying some also feel strongly against E. Option D is the only reasonable compromise i can see which leads to both sides coming away with something they want. Supporters of F gain nothing from compromising to E except this idea it will bring about "peace" which it wont. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Its hardly worked well when it has been subject to continuous controversy and I do think that you should remove the terrorist statement. Vote for D first and you would be showing evidence to back up the above statement. --Snowded ^TALK 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It has worked well despite a very small number of editors having a problem with it. I dont see any reason to remove the comment on terrorism, its just an example. As for D, I have posted on this page the fact im prepared to support D as a compromise if others are, including the collaboration project agree Republic of Ireland is not British POV. But im not going to change my vote until theres agreement from both sides and it didnt look like others were prepared to compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well me, I think Mick is just expressing frustration in a straightforward way, as Mick often does. :( While I don't agree with a lot of what he says, what sticks out for me is the potential inconvenience to our readers - when I type "Ireland" into the search box, I expect something better than a dab page, I mean if I wanted Empress of Ireland or Kathy Ireland, I would have started typing with an E or a K. Screw the editors, what works best for our readers?? That said, since we now have that nifty completion function in search, so long as Ireland (nation) and Ireland (state) were the fisrt two choices, I could live with E. After a year or two, page stats might make more clear which is the primary topic. BW, it's precisely because E is unfavoured that it is attractive. It seems to be the neutral way. And since I haven't been able to locate any stats, it seems up in the air as to which "Ireland" our readers are looking for. Franamax (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

About 100% would be looking for the country. Tfz 01:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No they would not. When the president of the United States wishes the people of Ireland well on St patricks day, is he only talking to the people of the Republic of Ireland? This idea that Ireland always means the state is rubbish. If i said one of my grandparents came from Ireland, should i link to the island or the state? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The country covers the whole of the island, the whole thirty two counties. The state is only a 'temporary little arrangement'. Tfz 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We have policies to cover perceived "temporary arrangements" you can find them at WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV. Even in the event of such unification there'd still be a separate article for the current 26 county state but based on recent election results, we've at least 20 years to work that one out. Valenciano (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the current boundaries, the country has 26 counties. Differing opinions on both sides aside, the upper six are, at this very moment, no more a part of the country south of the border than Monmouth is in England or Berwick in Scotland. As for the meanings of certain words, you will notice where List of countries redirects. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So maybe we need 3 articles, one on this "country", one on the island and one on the current sovereign state? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But we already have one for the country, it's at Ireland, we could do with a geographic one for the island, which is not very well covered. Tfz 01:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So TFZ if the current article at Ireland is the one you want you agree that it should remain at the prime spot and the temporary sovereign state (Republic of Ireland) should not take it. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(after e/c) Hopefully that's humour. It's true that political entities come and go while the land remains. But if you're serious about country == island, that only points up why this is such an intractable dispute - because some people see a difference, and others insist they are the same thing and it's just the rotten British/protestants/whatever standing in the way. Myself, I read "Ireland" in it's context: if it's the economy, I assume Ireland (state); if it's geography, I assume Ireland (island). Franamax (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in peoples' mouths, or thoughts in peoples' heads, that is an exposition of your own prejudice. The name Ireland is from Irish culture/mythology, from the goddess Eiru. It is synonymous with the people who live there, and takes its name from the people who live there, and it is the name of the country, it is not the name of the island first. In other words, the island takes its name from the country, and not the other way around. Tfz 10:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher, you say "Option E is not a good option in many peoples minds so i do not know why you think E will create peace on earth." You don't really give decent reasons for why it's not a good option. But the point is that the status quo certainly does not give us any peace. But what Snowded said makes very good sense. Put your vote where your mouth is. I removed A and B from my own vote. If you really think that D is the only compromise, vote for it. Give it your first preference. Make it LOOK like you're interested in collaboration and compromise. -- Evertype·✆ 10:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But note at the same time that Option D is being eliminated early on. As I say, I'd be happy with C, D, or E. Any of those have the potential to free us to edit articles instead of kicking each other in the balls all the time. -- Evertype·✆ 10:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Evertype, you seem to be working on the assumption that as long as we come to a solution that stops or significantly reduces the drama on here then we should go for that. However, that seems to ignore the fact that wikipedia isn't here for editors, it's here for readers. If a proportion of editors are pissed off about a decision, then that is regrettable, but if it is the best solution for the readers, then that is what should be done. Compromise for its own sake goes against what we're trying to do here. Quantpole (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Everytype, the 'OMFG' was in exasperation at your continual failure to read what I said, which you continue to do. Now that you have lumped me in with the 'wants to win' camp because I (and a great many others) don't support your deficient Option E solution, I am even less surprised that you don't read what I say, and respond in kind. People here really should not be taken in by Sarah's continual and insipid propoganda, there are plenty of people here working for the better of Wikipedia and not for nationalist POV, that does not mean they subscribe to seeing Option E as anything but what it is, abnormal, and certainly not a standard approach, or even a sensible application of IAR. Tfz is a good example of the type of reader who is just going to be totally confused when they rock up at an Option E solution, because island/state are not separate unrelated topics suited to basic disambiguation. Thinking of them as such is actually pandering to the people who do see this as a two sided battle which can have a 'winner'. I'll remove F as my third choice preference if it means my first choice, C, wins, but I'm not taking it off to appease anyone if it means E might end up as the solution. My opposition to E is unshakeable, for the good of the pedia and its readers. Go C!!!!. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, because clearly we were having trouble the last ten times you said it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, Evertype was. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed C is far better than E, although i still prefer D out of those 3. Its interesting to note 3 of the 4 people who have striked their votes on the ballot have D before E, 2 do not even list E. This idea that E is neutral and the middle ground is just not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd originally thought E was a reasonable compromise, but when I thought about it further, I'd have to agree with both Mick (a non-F (as #1, anyway) supporter) and BW (an F supporter) - it's merely designed to appease editors, not readers. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wholly support MickMacNee's analysis. A simple dab page at Ireland would be in the interest of editors not readers. What would it mean to a reader: "'Ireland' can refer to two things: 100% of a topic called 'Ireland' or 85% of a topic called 'Ireland'"? A straight-forward primary topic exists, with ROI being a clear subtopic in nearly every possible respect to the broader topic of Ireland. I think it is telling that editors involved in Ireland-related topics tend to place E last (e.g. the editors listed as members of WP:IECOLL), whereas editors unfamiliar with the topic tend to rank it higher. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont even think option E is in the interests of editors either. Supporters of E are ignoring just how difficult it is going to be to sort out every single link going to the Ireland page, something that will have to be done before the articles are switched, the people who fix all the dab links would probably do their nut if they ended up having to clean up the mess E winning would create.

So many will be just general "Ireland" links rather than specifically about the state. If we dont go for option C which creates a "general all Ireland article", obviously "general" Ireland matters must be directed towards the island article, which clearly makes it the primary topic and deserving of the main spot anyway. E just makes no sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I was right, then. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused...

What exactly is this poll intended to solve? Is it strictly to decide on just the article naming within the software and database, or is it intended toward usage? For instance, if I were to write "Seamus Flanahan caught the largest fish in [Ireland], a 12 lb. wiki-trout, at Lough Neagh in 1977", how will the outcome of this poll give me guidance? Do I have to pipe the Ireland link to get to the right article (I assume so)? Or do I need to change that "Ireland" wording to indicate the entity to which I refer, the (small-r) republic of Ireland (better yet, the nation-state known as Ireland?) or the entire island? Beyond the strict issue of what shows up in the address bar, I see this as a bigger issue - and I'd bet that all wikitrout anglers would agree. Substitute any fish species here, fisherpeople do really care about record catches. I foresee this as becoming a problem down the road, namely, what will be the convention for pipe-tricks? Can there be two articles noting the largest fish caught in "Ireland"? Franamax (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's strictly for the naming of 3 articles: Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation) & Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, Franamax is correct that there's more to it. This poll will help resolve the naming of three articles as GoodDay states, but once that's determined, some additional discussion at IECOLL will decide the best way to refer to the Ireland-country or Ireland-island when it is not clear what "Ireland" is being talked about. That advice will be another outcome of the project that will tie in with the updating namings. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. PS: How'd I forget that part (the additional discussion)? GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, just to be clear. The additional discussions *must* also be resolved as part of this process. Otherwise the entire process has failed, which would nullify this vote. That should give a great incentive to get this right the first time. --HighKing (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clearer, the additional discussions must resolve other issues of naming in accordance with and taking into account this binding vote. Otherwise they will fail and the issue will remain only partially resolved. That should give great incentive to voting editors to involve themselves constructively in future discussions of Ireland-related naming as well. Srnec (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. You're wrong. It's not possible for this issue to be "partially" solved. Read the Arbcom directive. And while we'd all dearly love this issue to be resolved, I genuinely don't see any incentive for a certain voting bloc to resolve anything. They talk beforehand about compromise. Every poll and discussion (even Masem's very last poll before the vote) was for a wide-spread compromise on all issues. Now we see many editors that favour the status quo abandoning their prior agreements to compromise and voting for the status quo. If their voting holds, they get what they want. If the process fails .. guess what? The situation remains the same (we call this the status quo), and they get what they want. This isn't the process that many editors signed up for - it wasn't to solve things one at a time, and I believe many of the "status quo" editors leaped at the opportunity. So what incentive remains for the other voters who want to see the problem resolved once and for all? It certainly isn't to see the status quo "ratified" in some way. I've said all along - a vote for "F" solves nothing. --HighKing (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If a vote for "F" is so problematic, why is it on the ballot? If the result is for "F", then "F" it is. People have participated in the poll on the basis that their vote will be counted as advertised, and that they will abide by the result. You cannot change this after the fact because an option you do not like is winning (unless you're the government). This is why all talk of concessions and compromise is now moot. Suggesting a scenario might be an "acceptable compromise" and not placing a vote for it at first preference is an empty gesture. The options are laid out, the statements have been made; the die is cast. If this is a problem, your disagreement is with whoever came up with the idea of this vote. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing sockpuppet votes

In [12] this edit, a user removed the vote of a confirmed sockpuppet. While I agree with the removal in this case (the user was involved in the Macedonia naming problems), I recommend that if you are aware of other confirmed socks to let me know and take the action of removing them. (If it were the case that a sock, prior to learning they were a sock, voted on this, but their sock action was for a completely unrelated matter, there's no reason to remove the vote, but that's what I need to determine.) --MASEM (t) 17:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

All confirmed un-announced socks should be deleted, such editors are dishonest. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed all Socks should have their vote removed no matter what their previous activity / involvement is. Id quite like to see other editors with blocks or bans have their vote removed too as punishment, but i take it "punishments" dont exist on wikipedia sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Just for clarity and as a point of order. You've removed the vote even though the socking had nothing to do with his right as an editor to vote on this matter? I wasn't aware that this was normal practice. Can you point me to where this might be actually in a policy or written down please? --HighKing (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The information box on the voting page says "Votes by sock puppets or meat puppets (and their masters) or similar will be removed from the balloting area". I see nothing there about only removing certain sockpuppet votes, it sounds as though all votes by them will be removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Highking/Masem: "Votes by sock puppets or meat puppets (and their masters) or similar will be removed from the balloting area" is as unambiguous as it gets and therefore all the reason in the world to remove the vote. Far better to have clear consistent rules like that. If we got into a situation of allowing some sockpuppets to vote but not others then that would certainly undermine confidence in the vote. Valenciano (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, so far there has only been this case, so the right action was still done. However, another interpretation of that implies any socking that is done to imbalance the poll is what we're looking at, not just any socking. But I will stick with "any sock" as the criteria for removal. But regardless, please don't remove these yourselves - just let me know so that there's no question of ballot tampering. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this interpretation. The rules were to stop multiple votes by socks, not as a punishment for an editor who socks on other pages. As Masem says, this rule is only in place so as to prevent voting designed to unbalance the vote. Clearly, in this case, it wasn't. --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A banned sock is a banned sock, and shouldn't be voting. And I'd say the same if he'd been an "F" voter. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Was he already banned when he voted? Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The vote in question (from SQRTxxxx) was from a user that is now permanently banned for sockpuppetry. It is common practice throughout Wikipedia to eliminate any contributions to votes, talk pages, etc. from banned users, even if the contribution came before the ban. It may not be written policy, but it is common practice. These users have violated the spirit of Wikipedia and their contributions are not welcome. I don't have a stake in this discussion about Ireland other than my vote (although my real name does start with "Mc" and my family emigrated from County Down). I'm sure, however, that SQRT's vote was intimately tied to his pro-Greece position in the Macedonia naming dispute, so was not an honest vote on the Ireland issue in any case. From what I've seen here, that one vote will not make any difference to the outcome anyway. (Taivo (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC))

@Taivo, not sure I understand the point that SQRT's vote was intimately tied to his pro-Greece position in the Macedonia naming dispute, so was not an honest vote on the Ireland issue in any case. Can we therefore remove any votes where editors have come from the Greece/Macedonia naming dispute? I don't think this is a valid point. Nor do I follow the point that one vote will not make any difference to the outcome anyway - is this an argument for inclusion then, since it will make no difference? And when you say it is "common practice", is it common practice to go back over all the contributions the editor made before he was a sock, and also revert them?

To answer Þjóðólfr above, No, he wasn't banned when he voted. In fact, he wasn't a sock when he voted. Nor did he sock on this topic. He voted on 3rd August. He created his sock account on 16th August, 2 weeks later. Or put it another way. When he voted, his vote was 100% valid and clean. A week later, it still was. The rule on sock voting is being very badly misused and misapplied in this case. I'm literally stunned that this is upheld by Masem. Bad call. I strongly object - another nail in the coffin of this process. --HighKing (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

God you moan alot. The note on the ballot page is very clear that Socks and their masters will have their vote removed. There is NO conditions of when they will not be removed. I dont know why you are even making such a fuss about this, the vote would not have impacted the overall result anyway. Heres an idea, unstrike ur vote and change it to what that guy had then it will be equal. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect an admin to (once again) admonish you for this blatent ad hominen attack. Just because you disagree with what I say doesn't mean you can resort to name calling and other verbal bullying - a theme that Masem stated he would come down hard on. I'll wait and see and I won't hold my breath - I've noticed that British editors tend to get away with behaviour that would result in a block for an Irish editor.... go figure. So now we have voter intimidation through ad hominen attacks to add to improper vote tampering. --HighKing (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lmao, so pathetic BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially unwise given this very recent Behaviour reminder. Your lmao follow-up just seems to be daring someone to take action. But I ain't holding my breath... --HighKing (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider my previous comment to you to be an ad hominen attack. You complained about the fact the Socks vote was removed, i clearly stated the ballot page says they are to be removed, answering your point. If suggesting you unstrike your vote so it actually gets counted is "voter intimidation" im sorry, but your definition of the term is very different to mine. The only other thing i said was "you moan alot", is that a serious attack? You have been complaining about several different things, so the comment is not misleading. I consider the claims you are making against me as pathetic, and you could quite possibly be going against WP:AGF with your comments. Accusing me of voter intimidation is a serious claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

An apology/retraction would work better than back pedalling and counter-accusations. I accept in advance. --HighKing (talk) 13:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I didnt back pedal, i explained every part of my previous comment and pointed out your accusations against me about "voter intimidation" were a very serious claim. If it helps ill accept your apology / retraction in advance as well and we can both move on. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem, in light of your Behaviour reminder, can we expect that this sort of comments and responses should be strongly discouraged? --HighKing (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)To answer Þjóðólfr above, No, he wasn't banned when he voted. In fact, he wasn't a sock when he voted. Nor did he sock on this topic. He voted on 3rd August. He created his sock account on 16th August, 2 weeks later. Or put it another way. When he voted, his vote was 100% valid and clean. A week later, it still was. The rule on sock voting is being very badly misused and misapplied in this case. I'm literally stunned that this is upheld by Masem. Bad call. I strongly object - another nail in the coffin of this process. --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we know he wasn't socking when he voted, or was he just not found out at that stage? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bastun. Two accounts were named in the socking findings. The 2nd account was created on 16th Aug. The vote was made on the 3rd. He was caught socking (with a "likely" verdict) on the 17th/18th. So the answer is that No, he wasn't socking when he voted. --HighKing (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On that basis, then, I wouldn't have a problem with it being restored, if Masem is willing to do so. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. He was caught socking with one account. This means exactly what it says and nothing more. It may have been the only sock account they had, or it may not. You can't say definitively either way. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree there was an absence of evidence, and it means exactly what it says and nothing more. --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you will understand why your statement "No, he wasn't socking when he voted" can't be supported by the evidence. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a harsh judgement but I would prefer a harsh judgement than for us to begin lapsing into leniency when it comes to sock and meat puppeting in this vote. Let's keep it on the straight and narrow even if that means being harsh in our decisions. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not harsh, it's wrong. We're not lapsing into leniency since there was no evidence of fraud on this poll, and that is what the rules on the ballot paper state very clearly. Where's the evidence? --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a vote by a sock, the ballot paper states clearly that Socks and their masters votes will be removed. It doesnt say only IF suspected of fruad. People who cant vote because their accounts are new aint all guilty of fruad but it doesnt stop their votes being removed. Perhaps the wording could of been better, ofcourse i doubt people expected someone to be defending a socks right to vote here in such a way, its commonsense that Socks votes are removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Votes by sock puppets or meat puppets (and their masters) or similar will be removed from the balloting area." It's harsh but it's what we agreed to.

With regard to there being "no evidence of fraud on this poll", there are a number of voters that has suddenly "returned", it appears, solely for the sake of this ballot:

• Kavathes seems to be a sock puppet related to the Macedonian vote. He/she's only contribution before voting in this poll was to leave the same message relating to "Μακεδονία" (i.e. Macedonia) on several users talk pages on the 1 May this year.
• Insectgirl appears to be a meat puppet. His/her only contribution before placing a vote here was to various topics relating to butterflies on the 15/17 August last year. According to his/her talk page, he/she did so then at the behest of his/her family. I suspect he/she voted here too at the behest of his/her family also.

(Neither of the above have contributed anything since.) Other votes are much less cut-and-dry but still suspicion raising (I am not going to name the accounts involved, look at the contribs yourself). I think it would be unfair to say that there is a serious threat from fraud but the threat is there. I am happy that there are such serious reprimands in place for dealing with sock-puppetry/meat-puppetry. Leniency, I think, would only encourage contempt. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 03:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Leniency toward sock and meat puppets should never be condoned here. During the Macedonia ArbCom, SQRTxxxx (the sock puppeteer in question) was actually caught soliciting meat puppets for a poll. He admitted it (although he didn't call it meat puppetry) and tried to justify his actions. He was not (but should have been) banned at that time. So the question of "was he caught before or after he voted here" can actually be answered honestly "before" because he was caught in the early summer for soliciting meat puppets--he just wasn't punished at that time. (Taivo (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

In fairness Taivo, you should declare yourself involved and against SQRTxxxx at the Macedonia pages. But I'm appalled that editors are implying that SQRTxxxx was involved in any impropriety before he socked. That is disgraceful, and totally against AGF policy. Guilty until proven innocent? --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been found guilty of being a sock or Sockmaster there for he is not innocent. His vote was rightly removed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Guilty until proven innocent?" No, HK, it's innocent until proven guilty. SQRT5P1D2 was proven guilty. He/she/they are no longer presumed innocent because it has been proven otherwise. Are you seriously defending a sock? And accusing other editors of acting in bad faith? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable if regular sock checks were taking place at this vote, but there appears to be no security measures taking place. Thankfully that Sock was caught out somewhere else, there may be others who get away with it. Checks should be done against all users in this vote as far as im concerned, because there are a few interesting accounts supporting several of the options (including atleast 1 supporter of F) :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a complete misapplication of the rule, and yet more evidence of behaviour that wikipedia should stamp on, hard. The rule is to prevent fraud, and no fraud occurred. I've asked for evidence, but the tactic seems to be to shout down rather than put up - people are happy to make unfounded allegations, totally against multiple WP policies, and despite Masem's warning on behaviour on this page, he doesn't seem to be bothered to enforce any of it. I've requested that Masem makes a ruling giving reasons. So far, that request has been ignored. And despite Masem's request that editors do not remove or otherwise tamper with the voting area, I see another vote was removed earlier. --HighKing (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

removal of ones own vote is not tampering with the voting area. If i see someone whos account was created after June 1st i will remove that vote, its worrying that one vote from a new user was only spotted a week after the person had voted. Not enough checks are taking place. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem explicitly requested editors to cease interfering with the voting area to remove any suggestion of impropriety. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If Admins are not policing the vote and removing socks or accounts created after the deadline set then someone has to. They can not just be left on the ballot page BritishWatcher (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem's explicit request is right at the top of this section, and you have misquoted him. His request was in relation to socks only. While you've highlighted an ambiguity around socks, iIt is explicitly stated on the ballot that editors must have an account created before 1st June '09 - there is nothing controversial whatsoever in removing votes by accounts created after that date. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The ballot does not close until September 13th. So it does not make a difference to the outcome if a disputed vote isn't removed until the admin does so. Let's leave this task to Masem so a consistent standard can be applied rather than having a string of arbitrary different decisions by different involved editors. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Two new accounts have been removed, one by myself. There is no dispute possible that they are in some way being unfairly treated the rules are very clear. So that just leaves the one sock vote. I wouldnt of removed that vote myself, but i certainly think it shouldnt be allowed to stay so the right thing was done and in good faith. It certainly doesnt justify the gross comments by highking about "vote tampering" BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If ya'll want to allow a sock's vote because he/she hasn't socked at this Poll, then I'll feel safe with that. HK's argument is reasonable. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

HighKing accused me of conducting a vendetta against SQRTxxxx without proof of sock or meat puppetry. Here is the ArbCom finding of fact that SQRTxxxx was guilty of soliciting meat puppets to influence voting at Wikipedia. WP:AGF only applies when there is no evidence otherwise. (Taivo (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

It's official. This process is a joke

I notice that Insectgirl has deleted her vote and references comments here as the reasons. And to think that Sarah was hounded and hauled back to Arbcom for profiling based on public info, yet when an RA calls someone a sock nothin happens. This has now resulted in an editor pulling their vote. Following on from vote tampering and editors removing valid votes, this process is a joke... --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Masem to comment. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Inactive accounts shoulda been banned from voting in the first place. the action of removing the vote in that way when the user has been inactive again since placing the vote is rather odd but ofcourse they are free to vote as there is no rule against it. There are "odd cases" of voters from all sides in this vote, so it may balance itself out i guess. But its ashame people rushed us into this vote without making sure we had some reasonable safeguards when it comes to voting rights.

Again your claim of vote tampering is a violation of WP:AGF, you should stop making VERY serious accusations like that. There is a big difference between saying a couple of votes seem suspect, removing votes by those who registered after the deadline date and removing a Sock compared to accusing someone of vote rigging or ballot tampering. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It *is* a serious allegation. The facts are that we've had ballot tampering with voters being removed illegally, we've had voter intimidation and bullying, we've had voters being called socks, we've had allegations of voters socking with no evidence when they cast their vote but their vote being pulled anyway. And it says a lot that you accuse me of breaching AGF when all you and RA have done for the past 12 hours is hound another off the page. And it's sickening the message left on the Talk page (which you call an apology) and it's sickening to see your example of hoping to catch some evidence by calling on all non-active voters to be checked. --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive said that everyone should be checked in the past as well, there are some cases which do have concerns. You are not the only one who is entitled to have concerns about this vote and mention problems. You have claimed people are vote tampering, sorry but that is a serious allegation. The only one questionable vote removed has been the sock, so i dont get your "with voters being removed illegally". No ones vote has been removed illegally, the removal of the one sock vote while you dispute it would seem reasonable to most and is backed up by the fact the ballot page states sockpuppets and their masters votes will be removed, it does not state ONLY if you are cheating in this specific vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said I was the only one with concerns - the difference is, I'm concerned that you and RA appear to be trying to find reasons to justify hounding an editor off the page because of your breaches in policy and breaches in behaviour. You, on the other hand, appear concerned with find evidence to retrospectively justify policy breaches. And as to your last point - go back and look again at the ballot page, especially at the section heading above the rule - what do you think "Procedures for dealing with Fraud" means?. --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

hounding an editor off the page? i want socks and user accounts created after the deadline removed, i dont think thats unreasonable. I dont like you claiming people are vote tampering for removing such things when it is justified. Under the dealing with fruad section it covers that IPs are banned and that new users cant vote.. we are not accusing all of those people of committing fruad on this vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember: we cannot do anything about socks unless there is strong evidence that there is socking going on. That means we need a second account or an IP address that is believed to be the sockee or socker, and there needs to be strong evidence of such. Such charges are potentially controversial, so I recommend at least just dropping a note on my talk page instead of calling it out here to determine if there's a way to investigate that.

Also remember: we are not deciding the fate of the world here. This is how we name 3 pages on WP. We should be trying to conduct a fair poll, which we have so far. But to demand the same rigorous checking and the like that one would associate with the election of major leader or the like is well beyond what WP operates as. Yes, we want to avoid gross fraud on the poll, but because of how WP operates, small cases of it are going to be near impossible to track. It should be understood that the user account creation date requirement and no-IP voters was meant to deal with the bulk of these, which seems to be the best preventative measure we could take. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why wikipedia does not have methods of checking a group of editors (like all who vote in important votes), obviously such checks wouldnt be needed in big votes but this is a pretty important one. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Because we're not a democracy. We avoid polls if we can help it, but it was determined that the only way to approach any type of consensus for this issue was to create a poll. But the security of polls are only as good as the tools used by the servers they are on, and we assume good faith. We cannot check for sockpuppetry unless there's strong evidence of that. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But it's OK to call editors sock puppets, yes? It's OK to tell editors they "moan a lot"? It's OK for editors to tamper with the ballot area and remove votes? I've asked for explanations on your Talk page, I've awaited your intervention here on behaviour issues. I've been polite and restrained, and I've waited patiently for responses. But your policy seems to be to ignore this page and any issues, and this has resulted in the current situation. When I contrast your behaviour now with the profiling incident involving Sarah777, it seems to me that you are not being even handed. Not one warning uttered. Not one reminder of policy. I hate drama for drama's sake, but is it too much to expect that you'd actually take an active involvement, explain your reasoning when politely asked, and police these pages for policy breaches? --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The response to the Sarah incident showed it was a bad and risky idea to take action against single editors. Your continued accusations of "vote tampering" i think are far more serious than someone removing a sock vote or saying certain accounts may be socks. Also i remember some time ago Masem posting on the admin board for non involved admins to keep an eye on this page, there is not just one person who must be responsible for everything here. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? It didn't stop DrKiernan from blocking her later though for a different incident? So when exactly did people learn that it was a bad and risky idea to take action against single editors? Or are you just making that up to (again, retrospectively) justify the lack of action here and now. Listen.............silence. Coincidence? Masem should either participate properly or resign. --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, look at Kavathes' edit history. In it's entirety:

• 1 May 2009: he/she/they posted the same message to seven user pages one-after-the-other concerning the Macedonia naming issue (about which some editors involved have drawn parallels to this vote).
• 4 August 2009: he/she/they voted here.

And that's it. In its entirety. Do you really believe that that is a genuine account? Assuming good faith is important, but it is no reason not to speak up. It is not short-hand for a policy of hear-no-evil-see-no-evil. It is not intended a means to censor the obvious from being stated. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I *strongly* protest at this continued breach of policy. RA won't be satisfied until perhaps Kavathes withdraws also! --HighKing (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) It would seem that there are rules about the voting, and, unless a voter breaches those rules, the votes need to stand. If there is evidence sufficient to satisfy a CU and a positive result that says X is a sock, then produce it, please. Otherwise, naming names here is, in my view, inappropriate. // BL \\ (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should not name names, but i think highkings accusations of voter tampering are far more serious. There is evidence in certain cases that they are socks or up to no good the trouble is lack of software / security in this vote for checking. I always thought it was possible for sock sweeps or something along those lines to possibly identify same users, i didnt know the only way was to have a solid second identity for the person, in a simple vote with no comments that makes it impossible to prove anything. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK i agree this process is becoming a joke now. We now have one user who has made just one edit 2 years ago. People are clearly using socks now because its obvious from this talk page that nothing at all is going to be done about it. Atlast me and highking agree on something. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats a risky game to play. Something can be done about it, all it takes is some detective work and a sockpuppeteer not being as clever as they think they are (and sockpuppeteers are rarely as clever as they think they are).

But look, I think everyone is getting too worked up over this. On every process on Wikipedia, there will be a few people who set out to cheat and exploit the system. That is just the way it is. More often than not, someone will get caught, but for every one that does there will be someone who gets away with it... this time. Eventually, though, they too will get caught. Rather than get upset at a few suspicious votes, just accept this is within the margin of error. There is no reason to believe that "one side" will have more abusive votes than the other, so there will be an element of evening out. Moreover, If a handful of sock or meatpuppets can influence the outcome of this, then that outcome is not robust enough for us to go forward with in the first place. Rockpocket 18:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can accept proven Sockers voting at this Poll, as long as they don't commit sockery here. In otherwords, though they've been bad elswhere, things are alright if they don't mis-behave here. Note: I've a distain for sock-puppets, but am willing to allow them (if they don't re-offend here). GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Borda Count

Since everyone seems so interested in how this would be turning out in other voting methods, I ran it through my favorite, the Borda Count. I did it twice, once scoring "6" votes as 0 points and once scoring them as 1 point, one more than no vote at all. It changed the margins, but not the resulting rankings. Current points under Borda Count: A:254 B:421 C:554 D:644 E:633 F:728 Just for the heck of it.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I did a previous count, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Archive 1#The weakness of STV, and at that stage D was narrowly the winner over F. Now it drops to second and it seems almost every voting system going would deliver a choice of F on these results. But even so once again D makes a strong showing when under most systems it bombs because it's a huge number of people's second choice and hardly anyone's first. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

yes the status of D in the different voting systems is interesting, its clearly the most reasonable compromise, despite being one of the first to be kicked out in this system. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your POV. Any of them, C, D, E, seem to me to be acceptable as all of those move the state article from RoI (F, where it is contentious) and avoid the problems A and B which are similarly problematic to others. I even changed my Vote to put D first, to give it more of a chance. I don't see you helping to move towards that by removing your F though... ;-P -- Evertype·✆ 09:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

E is problematic too but you did not remove that vote so theres not a huge difference. I still think F is by far the best option availble and ive said i will support compromise, but we need agreement on that here first. people from all sides need to accept a compromise and agree first, last time people from both sides showed opposition to what was being suggested. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"F" is no more or less "contentious" than any other option (in fact, as we can see, no matter how you count it, "F" is the most popular of all options on the card). "F" just happens to be the status quo. Changing the status quo will not mean an end to this issue among editors, it will just mean that something else will be the status quo (and a majority of editors will be unhappy with it).

The focus of discussions on how to dab pages should not be on how to relieve tension between editors. It should be on how best to dab topics for our readers. Picking a supposedly less "contentions" option among editors (a "contention" unsupported, and indeed contradicted, by published sources), or a supposed "compromise" option between editors, turns its back on that focus.

Think "readers". Think "topics". Think "encyclopedia". Do not think "editors". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Millions of people have viewed the Republic of Ireland article over the past few years, i wonder how many of them saw the need to complain about the title lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A feature of the STV under which the poll has been conducted is that votes for any preference only count for anything if the option of all more favoured preferences has been totally eliminated. Trying to analyse a STV poll using a method with such a fundamental difference would be misguided. If all preferences had been given weight in this way then the poll would probably look very different. Guest9999 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is why STV doesn't help in any way other than providing a "winner", since the alternative in the final round doesn't necessarily reflect the preferences. C and E have been surviving to the end, but they aren't the second preferred. Taking into account all the options, the second preferred option is D. There are over 40 votes with F-D as the top two. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Statements

Are users ineligable to vote (having registered after June 1st) able to make statements or just contribute to this talk page, is there a danger of socking to stack statements? Guest9999 (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There were no rules about who can and cant make statements as far as im aware so it should be fine. The restrictions only apply to voting. Oh it does say " statements by members of the Ireland Collaboration Project ", so i dont know if people have to be signed up to give a statement (im sure a few never bothered to sign) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

F-supporter in "No objection to removal of vote" shock!

A user who voted today has had his/her/its vote removed, on the grounds that the account was created after 1st June, and that this is against the rules as published on the poll page. This user had voted F as first preference. I therefore would like to point out the following:

• Their choice of first preference shows remarkable good taste.
• Removing their vote - that's fine with me.
• This does not undermine the process.
• Níl éinne ag caoineadh.
• Drama-level: zero.

Thank you for reading, I now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If this was Facebook, I would "like" that comment.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 16:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 2 people like this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. In two years, Wikipedia will be a Facebook application. (Taivo (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

A reminder

At what time does the Poll close? GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST)" (it's buried in the notes under "Procedure for voting"). HTH! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Let the tallying begin, the Poll has closed

An now the momment of truth. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Im glad that is over and done with, will someone put the vote in an archive box??? Now comes the fun bit i guess as certain editors spend the next few weeks trying to suggest this vote should be void simply because they lost. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. We're back to "winners" and "losers". Great. Collaborative me arse. I've already pointed out why this vote is void, from bullying to vote tampering, all without check. Thank God this farce has ended, although it's a shame this opportunity has gone a-begging. --HighKing (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem, will we be getting the results of the vote (even if there are outstanding disputes) tonight or wont it be till tomorrow for all the votes to be counted? Should people go to bed or should we all stay awake like on election nights?? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not going to be immediate.. (and remember, the results are not to be immediately enacted) --MASEM (t) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse, and once the vote is offically counted and announced (although we already know the result), thats when the real fun begins, when we move onto sorting out all the other business.. I guess we are all going to enjoy each others company for many weeks yet. Well done for sticking through this though Masem, there were a few points when i thought the whole thing was going to come crumbling down. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've updated my tally page with the final count. The result was counted using Open STV. A bot reformatted the contents of the ballot page into an Open STV "ballot file". There was thus no human hand in the counting of the vote. The script the bot used is here. The output from Open STV was copied directly to the tally page. I also prepared a graph of this output, copying the values by hand. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not fair :(

I was hoping for a live video feed from Simonscourt, complete with non-committal commentary from each of the options and intense-faced tallymen scribbling notes. ;-)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

More "Donehy & Nesbitt" mobile from the snug stuff. No surprises on this one, it was fait accompli. Tfz 23:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I was more expecting to run the results like the Election Night Special. :) --MASEM (t) 23:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this throughout the process; I've found it very useful. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@HighKing - sorry, the vote is not void. The only editors who will say so are... well, I won't name names, but there are five of them, including you. There was no vote tampering, the record of who voted what, and who changed what, is there for all to see. There's not a hope in hell of the vote being declared void. You can accept that, and participate positive on the talk page to sort out what happens next (use of names within articles, template and cat titles, etc.) - or not.

@BHG - sorry, that's what electronic voting gets you. :-/ Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Won't name names, but you go ahead and name me anyway :-) --HighKing (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@Bastun -- surely some technowizard could be volunteered to program a few avatars to give us all the drama of a live count. ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a horse race, that could be graphed out showing different horses with Letters instead of numbers, Would be able to see one take the leader, then the other catching up etc, as things progress the horses start dropping as they get eliminated all the way to the finish line. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This set of bar charts does a pretty good job of showing how the horses ran. -- The Anome (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

BHG - I'll work on a Declan Ganley-esque avatar, which will have a speech module saying "That's it, I'm outta here" but which will automatically reset itself next time the issue arises. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the outcome is to retain the status quo, what does Masem mean by "and remember, the results are not to be immediately enacted"? 91.106.12.133 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably Masem wasn't following the ongoing tallies (which is fair enough for a neutral moderator); and it had been agreed that whatever the outcome, no page moves would be immediately enacted without addressing ancillary issues such as in-article use, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no "outcome" on any issue will be finalized unless and until all issues are agreed. --HighKing (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ofcourse Highking that is the case, but the status quo remains in force whilst we are debating all these issues anyway so im fine with that. In truth by delaying you are just setting back when the clock starts on the 2 year NO change rule. If we sort everything by the end of the month, then Republic of Ireland will be the title of the country article atleast until September 2011. If people delay for 4 months then ROI will be the title until atleast 2012. Im fine with that, but its your choice thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What status quo? Oh - you mean the constant edit warring, sniping, bullying tactics, vote tampering, nasty comments, ad hominen attacks, etc. I suppose if that's what people want.... --HighKing (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, my understanding was that ArbCom instructed that people were to "agree on a process", and that said process turned out to be this vote. Correct me if I am wrong. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tally

Masem - R.A. and Valenciano have both been running OpenSTV tallies during the poll. R.A. details the method used, above. Can we get a declaration that this is an acceptable method and therefore a valid result, please? We can then move on to discuss the ancillary issues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I do think we need to talk about it. The final difference is not huge, and we all know that F was one of the most disliked options (as well as the default position and the most liked). E came pretty close and avoids downstream conflict as any experienced editor here knows. Now yes, F can be imposed for three years but the conflict is bound to spill over into other areas. I think its time for all sides to just sit back and think for a bit before reacting. --Snowded ^TALK 10:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, E is totally unacceptable. Fmph (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, E is totally unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

F has won, despite the voting system being designed against it. Had this been a simple first past the post, F would have slaughtered the opposition. We can try and get a compromise if people want, id still accept one option however im going to strongly oppose compromise if its about option E, which is totally unacceptable and not a compromise at all, or if i see people bashing option F as "British POV etc" which is misleading and incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"...F was one of the most disliked options..." F was the *most liked* option. End of. Some contributors mentioned during the vote that IRV is not a Condorcet method. A Condorcet method selects the candidate that (to quote Wikipedia) "when compared with every other candidate, is preferred by more voters." While it is true that IRV is not a Condorcet method it nearly always (in practice) ends up selecting the Condorcet candidate. The case of this vote is no different, "F" is the Condorcet candidate. It is the candidate that when compared with every other candidate, is preferred by more voters. At the last count (a few weeks ago, I'm at work now and so I'm not going to count it again right now) something like 75% of people ranked F in one way or another. There are a few noisy editors who repeat that "F" is the most disliked. The numbers simply don't support that view.

"...the conflict is bound to spill over into other areas..." We need to address those areas now. There's general agreement, I think, and the issues there are far more substantive. One of the great problems IMHO is the great investment that has been made in the title of the "Ireland" articles. Of much more importance and impact across the encyclopedia are the wider issues (titles of categories and other articles, references in articles, templates, lists, etc.). The matter of what to title a mere two articles have been put to bed. Now, let's move on to the real issues.

("E came pretty close..." "E" BTW was IIRC the least preferred option among members of WP:IECOLL - and that dodgy "Irish voters" subset. "F", again, was the most preferred. I'll tot these numbers up again tonight if people want.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

agreed we should move on to start sorting out all those other important issues over at the collaboration page. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

R.A., I think it would be hugely useful if you could do those tots. The last time I checked, F was both the "most popular" and "least unpopular" among Irish voters, for example, and I think being able to show that will cut off a whole slew of time-wasting "discussion" before it starts. (And apologies for not offering to do this myself - but your figures/tallies are obviously up-to-date, whereas my own efforts got sidetracked some time ago). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My quick tot for what it's worth.... 40 "ROI" editors, 17 of whom voted F as first preference, 42.5% of the total. This is only slightly below the 44.5% of overall editors who voted F. When lower prefs of those editors are considered, F beats E 24-14 with 2 nontransferables. NI editors voted 5F, 2D, 1C. There was one other "Irish" editor who voted F who I haven't included in either of those cats. So 23 out of 49 "Island of Ireland" editors voted F which is slightly above average. Anyone who declared themselves to be a citizen of Ireland is included in the ROI totals even though in many cases those editors might be second generation Irish so it is an unscientific exercise. Valenciano (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I rather expected those reactions. The voting system was not designed against anything, it was an STV vote and yes F came out on top. Several editors withdrew, no one is naive enough to think that adopting F will close the matter. You guys have an opportunity here, it looks from the comments above that you do not want to take it. --Snowded ^TALK 11:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I rather expected those reactions. The voting system was not designed against anything, it was an STV vote and yes F came out on top. Several editors withdrew. Some people are naive enough to think that NOT adopting F will close the matter. You guys have an opportunity here. It looks from the comments above that you do not want to take it. Fmph (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't we wait for the results to be officially adjudicated by ArbCom before we go predicting actions and reactions? --Pretty Green (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The result is clear, ofcourse we should wait for the "official verdict to be announced before official appeals take place, but there is no reason for this vote to be considered void. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that. But this sort of talk, whether or not the result is clear, should, IMO, wait till after an official announcement of results. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The STV or what ever type of vote we had was chosen to make it harder for F to win as far as im concerned. The result clearly shows F would of done far better in First Past the Post, instead of having to take on all other votes combined. Several editors did withdraw, however im more than happy for the final result to include their votes.. F won with a majority even if we include the strikers. Requests for compromise was predictable aswell, as i said before id still prepared to accept compromise, although the conditions for that compromise has a far bigger list today than it did a month ago. The one thing that really annoys me about all this though is the double standards. Had F lost this by just ONE vote, we all know the Republic of Ireland title would be gone and there would be no way of overruling the verdict. Yet some seem to think the option that came second and LOST to F, should be seen as a compromise? its simply not and totally unacceptable thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting this, but I will throw out an ancedote that is appropriate here. At least in the states, there's the idea that if a president is elected in clear landslide (both electorial college and popular vote) then there's a mandate for that president to take steps he thinks its necessary and ignoring the minority vote (though certainly free to add their input); without that mandate, the president is usually tied to play partisan politics to get things done. The last likely one where a clear mandate existed would have been for Clinton's second term in 1996 (United States presidential election, 1996). However, when 2000 and the hanging chads came around, the votes were pretty damn close, and yet the winner believed he had a mandate much to a number of voters' anger.

The only reason I bring this up is that the final results, pending a review of the tally, show a similar case as the 2000 US election: we have a winner, which arguably won, but not by a large margin (it both wins the STV and gets 50% of all votes by round 4, and roughly has 20% more votes than the second best option by the last round). Is the mandate to keep this? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not suggesting we have to consider if there's consensus to go with another option - but certainly leave that route open - if everyone believes we agreed to start and end with the STV result, then, well, here we are. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Masem, I don't think that analysis holds up. A big flaw in it is that in 2000 Bush didn't win the popular vote, Gore did, so you could argue it the other way as an example of what happens when a less popular second preference is chosen. Compromise has proved impossible and not for want of trying. F won and we should proceed on that basis. Valenciano (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Masem, a president that wins by a landslide has a mandate to enact great change. Whereas a president that wins by just one vote is no less president. Our vote was to select between discrete choices (e.g. "which president"). None of our options have agency (i.e. they are not people with powers) so the question of "how much of a mandate" is not of much concern. "F" 'won' 55% of the vote. Certainly any presidential candidate that won 55% would be deemed to be elected?

BTW Clinton's share of the vote in 1996, which was 49% overall, 54% excluding Perot. That would likely have been larger if an IRV system has been used since we could expect that much of Perot's ballots would have transferred to Clinton. If all of Perot's 1996 ballots transferred to Clinton, Clinton would have received 58% of the vote compared to 55% for "F" in our little election.

The comparison with the 2000 US presidential election is surely far of the mark. In that election the "winning" candidate won a smaller share of the popular vote compared to the "losing" candidate (i.e. 47% vs. 48%). In our election the winning option is also the Condorcet criterion i.e. the most popular no matter how you count it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

EEEK, let's not use the 2000 US Prez election results as a comparison. There was a possibility that many Florida Gore supporters accidently voted for Reform candidate Pat Buchanan. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but at least the US poll wasn't rigged. Most of the voters in this poll have never ever edited the Ireland/RoI articles. At the very least, US citizens have to live with their choices, but not here at WP. Now it's open licence to change all those Ireland words into RoI. Eat your heart out Eire/Ireland. Tfz 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All I'm trying to say is that (barring issues on checking the results) 1) we have a winner, and we could end all this here and now and say that's it 2) the margin of its win, while sufficient to win per our initial setup of these results, suggests that there may be an alternative *if* those that support F agree with some type of consensus towards another solution that is more amenable to all parties (that's the problem with STV here in this specific case is that while it's telling us what option "wins", it doesn't help identify what option is most enjoyed by all voters. Lessons learned, but...). Mind you, if there are people stauntly against attempt to disrupt the winning result, then there's no incentive to pursue further discussions on a consensus option, and leave F as the winner, and go from there. Right now, my gut tells me that few are going to back down from declaring F the winning option, but I keep this on the table as a possible way to smooth things out, with our fallback being the vote result should any type of resistance against the attempt be meet. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

E is off the wall completely, and at least with RoI we have a halfway house, although my preferred choice was Ireland (sovereign country). Using RoI is a bit like calling a cat a dog, a bit of the kindergardens' about it. Tfz 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite millions of people viewing the article on the country at Republic of Ireland, a TINY number of people have complained about the title so i guess its not done that much damage to wikipedia over the years. Suggestions that F is somehow like callin a cat a dog are unhelpful. THe country in question created the term Republic of Ireland, saw the need to make it an official description, and its government, ministers, people in parliament, media, sports team all still use the term today when needed. I think we should move on to the next phase, once the result has been confirmed and verified, lets get onto when to use the term in articles and other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet we don't have the UK being called the Monarchy of the United Kingdom. It's would be a similar situation. RoI only describes the political system that Ireland uses, that's all it does, and no more. We have been through this before. Tfz 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No the United Kingdom article should probably be at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UK is just what it regularly gets called, id rather the full title of the state BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom has never ever been used as a synonym for the United Kingdom, either officially or informally. MickMacNee (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, its a crazy comparison. Also ofcourse i feel i should point out the meaning of the word Kingdom - "A Kingdom is a sovereign state instituting a monarchy, or having a monarch as its head.". The United Kingdom, there for already mentions the monarchy in its title, and we are honoured to do so. Ashame more republics dont keep the "Republic of".. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the other person's input is always crazy, but you posses the eternal truth. The intention of the introduction of the RoI act as to describe Ireland's political system as a republic. You should read the Dail notes from that time. It is not for BW or MM to reinterpret that original meaning. Sorry guys. Tfz 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We are here to talk about the name of the article, not the name of the state. The poll was introduced following years of a small group of people raising concerns about the title. The majority of the community who took part in the poll disagree with that group of people. The matter should be closed now. Im not reading through old papers, considering they had wanted independence and to become a republic for quite some time, ud think they would want it in their states title but lets wait for the official results to be declared ;). BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Monarchy of the United Kingdom is an altogether different thing (just as the Presidency of Ireland is). The correct analogy is between "Republic" and "Kingdom". The state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is located at United Kingdom in just the same was as the state called Ireland is located as Republic of Ireland. Talk of double standards is nonsense. Like someone asked before (I think it was Evertype), what shall we do with the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All sorts of methods were tried to settle this long-running disagreement. For years it rumbled on as a series of proposed page moves which led to lengthy disputes. Then IECOLL started up and we tried a structured-reasoning approach, but that didn't work. There simply was no consensus, not even anything approaching it: there was open disagreement about very simple basic propositions, and it was quite clear that editors were approaching the issue from a variety of deeply-held perspectives, all of which produced different outcomes from a rational premise backed up by evidence; the main difference was that different editors attached widely different priorities to various aspects of the problem. So in the end a poll was tried, and the results of that poll are quite clear: one option comes out ahead whatever counting method is used.

I happen to be pleased with the outcome, because it's a solution which minimises ambiguity. Others will dislike it, because it doesn't fit with their sincerely-held and rational assessment of all the evidence presented. But that's not the main point: the most important thing is that that is the outcome of an open process in which everyone had their say, and all participants agreed to be bound by the outcome when they signed up to IECOLL.

I signed up on the basis that whatever outcome was reached would be the outcome: we might get what I considered to be a bad result, but at least we could close the file on an issue which has wasted far too much time over the years. But now we are apparently being asked to consider ignoring the outcome of the vote because a minority of editors who don't accept the outcome are likely to be cause ongoing conflict.

I'm sure that the concern over ongoing conflict was raised with the best of intentions, but I really don't like the logic. It seems we are being told that a noisy minority should be given some sort of veto over an outcome which has widespread support, however the votes are counted, and that because some people won't accept the result we should go back to drawing board. That's a very bad way of making any sort of decision. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a bit off to be honest BHG. THere are noisy minorities on both sides of this conflict and a substantial number of people who were concerned to gain a lasting result. To suggest that a middle ground be sought is not to give any noisy minority a veto. Clearly prior attempts to reach a compromise failed, but when mediation clicked in (after a resignation or two) there was no attempt to formalise a process, just a rapid acceptance of a vote (driven by some of the protagonists). As I said above we have all missed an opportunity here. I suppose there is an lesson here, people in WIkipedia have nothing to loose by adopting extreme positions. In real life they do. Mediation is a lot easier in real life for that reason. --Snowded ^TALK 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whats the middle ground, the vote that came second and that many of us strongly oppose is NOT the middle ground. Also its hard to stay in the middle ground with rants like that of Tfz claiming the vote was rigged, especially when there many things to suggest F could have won even easier if it wasnt for the voting system selected AND we had a day of socks!, i shant forget that day, when we basically were told on this talk page nothing at all can be done about socks, and all of a sudden several potential socks turned up who had not been active for months, in one case i think over a year. The overwhelming majority of the iffy votes, went to E. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, option-F has prevailed, the 3 articles-in-question shall remain titled as they are. Next stop - 2011. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@Snowded, I'm afraid that I long ago concluded that the intractability of this issue arose from the fact that any possible outcome would leave some people extremely dissatisfied. Some people don't want the term "Republic of Ireland", but there's no compromise on that -- either it's there or it isn't. I wanted a name which was unambiguous and uncontrived, and nobody seriously proposed an alternative to RoI which met those criteria ("26 counties" is about as good as it gets, and that's highly problematic). Many of the so-called compromise proposals were not really much of a compromise, because they didn't involve everyone giving up a little bit to achieve something which satisfied everybody a little bit -- e.g. "Ireland (state)" simply doesn't meet either of my two criteria.

So while I respect those like Rockpocket who have pleaded for some sort of middle ground, I think that a solution to this issue is inevitably to going look a bit like pendulum arbitration (one sides "wins", the other "loses"). My point about the "noisy minority" is simply that any solution was going to leave some people very cheesed off, there's no merit in discarding the outcome of the poll. This result does have its opponents, but the fact that does have wide support will probably make it more stable than any of the alternatives, each of which has its strong opponents, and none of which has such strong support as this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm double checking RA's numbers but I'm not seeing anything amiss based on what he has right now. Even with a small error (I don't expect there is), there is a clear winner from this but I will still be crossing t's and dotting i's to make sure. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@Tfz: You said "Now it's open licence to change all those Ireland words into RoI." Um, no. The article titles stay where they are. We still need to decide on use within articles, in other article titles, templates, categories, etc. I for one will be opposing any mass change of "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland" within articles. Those are the things we need to sort out, now, though, and which I and others have raised here. Postive discussion of those issues (rather than "The poll was invalid"/"The title should be at..." type contributions) would be most welcome. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, despite my support for option F i dont want a mass changing of everything either. What i do want however is some very very clear guidelines, that any person can look at and without doubt will come away with the same conclusions on when ROI should be used instead of Ireland and when it should not be used to avoid future fights over different articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also no longer prepared to support any form of compromise on the article naming issue. The vote clearly stated the result would be binding for two years, there for we must follow through on that statement and can not go back on something because a few people are unhappy with the result. As soon as the vote is announced and verified, we move to sort these other matters out. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I voted for F, and I'm happy with the result. Just to be clear on my position, I believe that there is no need whatsoever to change the usage within articles. Where the context is clear, I'm happy to have links to Ireland the island and Ireland the state remain the same. The term "Republic of Ireland" only needs to be used when there is ambiguity that cannot be resolved from the context; such as, for example, in the title of the Wikipedia article. -- The Anome (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's my position too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

I have prepared a brief analysis of the vote comparing all voters against members of IECOLL. The IRV/STV 'winner' is the same in each ("F"). A difference exists in that the Condorcet candidate among IECOLL members is "D", whereas among voters as a whole it does not differ from the IRV winner. In both groups if "F" is withdrawn, "D" becomes the IRV winner (and is the Condorcet candidate).

There are some caveats to this:

1. The members of WP:IECOLL are a self-selecting group with a relatively small sample size and so cannot be assumed to be representative of the wider community
2. IRV depends on a large sample size to eliminate random error in order to "become" a Condorcet method (so a contradiction between the IRV winner and the Condorcet winner among the IECOLL sample is not to surprising).

However, it does demonstrate, I think, that a "compromise" candidate, if one exists, is for "D" *not* "E". Maybe we can bear this in mind for future votes (i.e we only need to poll "F" vs. "D")

Someone, more adept at the dark arts of statistics, may examine the voting pattern of IECOLL members vs. all voters (or "all voters less IECOLL members") to see if there is a difference. Also transfers to "F" seem to be quite low (i.e. there seems is evidience for a "not F" opinion). Can this be examined also? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

'F' is also the most favoured "single-option", i.e 21 voters voted ONLY for 'F'. The only other options for which this occured were 'E' and 'A', with one each. Good analysis BTW Fmph (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good analysis, im still waiting for the official declaration of the result though :(. I want confirmation that this matter of the Republic of Ireland article name has been resolved for 2 years. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If the vote was to be tallied in any way other than the way stated on the voting page it is very likely that people would have voted differently. A feature of STV is that second, third, etc. preferences only come into play when there is a 0% chance of all more favoured preferences being successful. Votes are not discussions, they are not meant to be interpreted they are meant to be counted. Guest9999 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Guest999 -- that's spot on. For the record, I am one of those who voted as I did because I understood that it was an IRV vote, and I cast my vote to achieve the results I wanted within that system. I would be very concerned if my second or third preferences were to be interpreted as indicating that those options were some sort of nearly-as-good-solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)