Ouch, not a fan of this dab either. I would think anyone looking specifically for Northern Ireland would search for that. But, I'll leave it be... --PeterfitzgeraldTalk 19:05, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
We have to consider that someone may wish to visit "Ireland" and (believe it or not) be unaware that it falls under two different governments. We do the same thing with Korea and Congo. Also, using "Ireland" for the Republic would imply that Northern Ireland is not "Ireland", which would be... troublesome. - Todd VerBeek 20:01, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
Why don't we just include the two regions under one main topic..?? (i.e. Ireland (Island) ) I don't think many tourists travelling to Ireland (Island) really view the two states as being entirely different places. --Disonyxiated 19:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that is the reason why I don't like this disambig. From a traveler's perspective, there are no border controls, hence Ireland is one tourist destination. The two Congos and Koreas have border controls (to say the least) as well as serious differences in their cultures and social structures, whereas the "Irelands" simply do not. When I visited Ireland, I certainly didn't think of it in terms of the North and the South, I thought of it in terms of "Belfast area," "Dublin Area," "Dingle," etc. This reality is well represented by the fact that we actually have Northern Ireland listed as a region of I think this is a good example of how Wikitravel's policy of privileging sovereignty does not necessarily help the traveler. Regardless of what "country" you are in here, you are really just traveling around Ireland, the island. Why privilege politics over travel?
This is also a frustrating practice "for the editor" since I keep accidentally setting up links to places like Talk:Ireland#Regions. In fact, I would have forgotten about this whole thing if I hadn't just accidentally wound up here again.
Discussion from Republic of Ireland Talk page
With the caveat of having no clue about the situation, I don't really see much of a rationale above for the current "Republic of Ireland", which seems to fly in the face of Wikitravel's normal "most common name" convention and gets some objections on political grounds too. Would it be thoroughly unacceptable to move it to plain old "Ireland", which is already used on most other language versions and a huge slew of incoming links, and plop in a China/Israel style disclaimerbox that this article is about the bit where they use euros, and you need to mosy over to Northern Ireland for the pound-using bit? Jpatokal 03:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I partly support that proposal as it would enable us to dispose of the present clunky and unWikitravel-like title. However, there is the disadvantage of losing a disambiguation that offers a convenient link to both the south and north for people who are visiting the island of Ireland (irrespective of the political divisions). It might also be worth noting that we have maintained disambiguation pages for other articles with similar status: KoreaBorneo and Timor. The main problem here is that Ireland is the name of both the country and the island, whereas the other places mentioned either have totally unrelated names or have the prefix of west and east... mmm WindHorse 08:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I also support this proposal, in conjunction with a removal of the disambiguation discussed above. A link to Northern Ireland in the regions section of Ireland would take care of travelers looking for that information; its description can and should mention that it is in a different country. My personal experience is that travelers are visiting the Emerald Isle, not "The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom Home Country of Northern Ireland." And on Wikitravel the politics do not come first. --PeterTalk 17:23, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree that practical considerations should overrule political ones and, as stated, many travelers who visit the Emerald Island are only interested in information about the whole geographical region, and are not concerned whether the part they are visiting is ruled from Dublin or London. However, by using the title Ireland to represent both political entities, I think we will inflame both republican and unionist sentiments and incite a constant edit war. Therefore, I wonder whether it would be better to preserve Ireland as the title for the island and have the following two disambiguations: 'Ireland (republic)' and 'Northern Ireland'. In this way, the title is Wikified, political sensitivities are respected and the Emerald Island retains a title that is convenient for travelers who are interested in scenery, not politics. In some ways, using Ireland as a title to represent the whole island without the political disambiguations is perhaps similar to using the title America to cover the US, Canada and Latin America and just mentioning in the article that the regions use different currencies. Anyway, just throwing out some ideas. WindHorse 05:22, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
plus plus plus...another point for keeping the republic and north as separate articles is the visa regulations. For EU member states obviously no visas are required, and I'm sure that both counties have the same policy towards the US and Canada, but for other nationals it could be different. I know that for Bhutanese, a visa for France allows travel to Germany, but not to the UK. That requires a different application. It is many moons since I traveled on the Swansea to Cork ferry, and I have totally forgotten the regulations, but there is quite a possibility that there is a difference, as there is between France and the UK. Anyway, just an after thought... WindHorse 09:20, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Ireland and the UK are part of a common travel area, and there are no border controls. It's sort of like our own mini-Schengen ;-) You will be lucky if you notice crossing the border never mind being stopped. Most guidebooks that I know of deal with the entire island, and this does seem a sensible approach, I don't see why people planning a visit would restict themselves to one or other jurisdiction. -- Blorg 17:09, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Hi Blorg, I full agree with your point. However, the reason for maintaining separate articles for the two jurisdictions was not made in respect to travelers restricting themselves to one political region, but to accommodate different information. For example, the south is part of the Euro zone, whereas the north uses GB Pounds. Separating the two areas avoids having to state general prices in two currencies. There are also different ticketing rules for public transportation in both regions. Again, this can only be covered adequately if the they are given separate articles. As I said, I fully agree with your comments when looked at from the point of border controls, but in order to offer information on the two regions in a clear and non-confusing way in was thought best to keep the two areas separate. Anyway, thanks for your input on the matter. Take it easy. WindHorse 21:28, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
I dunno, except for the mistake with the UK flag those changes looked a lot to me like an honest attempt to plunge-forward and get an article started. For instance note the way that the person had replaced the fact book with the country template (admittedly it should be the wiki format version). I think I'd rather see the anon users stuff fixed up with the wiki format version of the template and the correct flag, than to do a rollback to the CIA version. I figure we want to encourage folks who really are plunging forward. -- Mark 07:30, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
If I was too hasty I am sorry, but when I saw the page it was only a template and appeared to be vandalism. The user edited the page at the same time I rolled it back. -- Huttite 07:37, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
I'm sure it's OK. Sometimes I think anon users (those who are not vandals) are a bit un-confident and should be given some room to make mistakes since we can always roll-back later. -- Mark 07:57, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
I note they came back later and made some good changes. I am going to add the full template to see if that will help them more. -- Huttite 08:26, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
Hi, just started on Ireland and Northern Ireland, and was wondering if 'Ireland', the name of the country in Europe referring to the 26 counties, could be changed to the 'Republic of Ireland', as 'Ireland' generally means the 32 counties and things could get a little confusing. Also, the first edit to the Ireland page wasn't me, the second one was me (when I was anonymous), in case there was some ambiguity. -- Professorbiscuit
I'm a little dubious about this. First, I'm a scaredy-cat about hotspot political issues like Ireland. But second, I'd worry that we'd then have two places to put information about the Republic: on Ireland, and on Republic of Ireland.
That all said, I think if we make Ireland a disambiguation page (rather than a page about the island), it'll probably be OK. Any other thoughts? --Evan 20:52, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
I just discovered this conversation. It was me who messed up the page in the first place and yes it was an honest attempt to start it and yes I went back in later, nervously, to continue. It's much easier now the correct template is there. I'll add more if I can. I've done some on the Cork page too
-- ( anonfromCork)
anon: Don't worry about messing things up -- you did a great job getting this article active. Thanks for your work and help. --Evan 22:56, 3 Apr 2004 (EST)
There is no such country as "Republic of Ireland", though it is sometimes wrongly described as such. The name of the country which is the subject of this article is "Ireland" and it happens to be a republic. It is not to be confused with "Northern Ireland", which is a part of the United Kingdom. The title of this page should be "Ireland", and the disambiguation page should distinguish between "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". --Lorcan 2 Aug 2005
You are strictly speaking correct, but the Republic of Ireland is the country's legal description as stated in the Republic of Ireland Act.
That said, the "common usage" criterion tells me this page really should be at plain old Ireland, with a disclaimerbox pointing to Northern Ireland. Jpatokal 03:56, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I believe that Lorcan has stated it correctly. The Irish Constitution specifically states that, in English, the name of the country is "Ireland". The Republic of Ireland Act refers only to the "description", not to the "name". In addition, the Constitution takes precedence over all laws so that if the Oireachtas had wanted to change the name of the country then a referendum to change the Constitution would have been required. As an Irish citizen may I state (with all due nervousness) that I often come across fellow citizens who object to "Republic of Ireland", some who don't mind it and no-one who prefers it. --BrianR 15 Sep 2005
I want to revisit this discussion. I feel the disambiguation page is redundant and this article should be moved to Ireland and move the disambiguation page to Ireland (Disambiguation). Everyone in the UK understands the relationship between Ireland and Northern Ireland, as does everyone in Ireland. I'm sure the majority of Americans do too because I remember, even as a young child, watching video of the Catholics and Protestants clashing and became aware of the turmoil and history of Ireland. So I think a disambiguation of "Ireland" is just foolish as most English speakers will likely know Northern Ireland is independent of Ireland. Thoughts? -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 23:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
I'm not overly familiar with the region on a personal level, so can not add voice to objections to one or the other based on local sentiments. However, I think that most people are aware that Ireland refers to the republic and Northern Ireland refers to the province. So, I think it is acceptable to drop the disambiguation in favor of having two unconnected articles simply called 'Ireland' and 'Northern Ireland'. WindHorse 03:32, 8 June 2007 (EDT)...though on reflection, leaving the disambiguation is useful for travelers who wish to visit the island of Ireland. In addition, we have a disambiguation the two Koreas, where the lines of demarcation are far more clearly defined. Maybe the argument for maintaining the status quo is, perhaps, slightly in more compelling... WindHorse 03:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
There is a bit of a discussion of this issue from a different angle at Talk:Ireland. --PeterTalk 03:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
As a new wikitravel user (and a citizen of Ireland), I have an interest in this conversation. Firstly, I also edit on wikipedia, and conversations on this topic can get *VERY* heated at times over there, so it's nice to see it kept on an even keel here!
I would say that there are merits on both sides of the arguement regarding having a disambiguation page or not. Personally, I expected there to be one when I came here, and I automatically searched for Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland (perhaps that's my wikipedia training!).
Speaking as someone living here, I personally see the two jurisdictions as being distinct and different, and from that point of view, perhaps they should have two articles. However, this site is primarily for travellers and tourists, and I don't know whether they would view it as one country or two, particularly since the whole peace process, and decommissioning of arms by the IRA, Etc. There is a border between the two jurisdictions, but it is largely un-manned, given that there is a common travel policy between Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it it's full title).
On balance if I had to express a preference for one article which covers Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or two separate articles, I think I'd plumb for one article, but make sure that the two jursidictions are treated with respect, or Northern Ireland could get 'lost'.
I don't know if this helps or hinders the conversation, but it's my 2c worth anyway! --The.Q 08:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
comment copied from Talk:Ireland to consolidate this discussion
From a traveler's perspective, there are no border controls, hence Ireland is one tourist destination. The two Congos and Koreas have border controls (to say the least) as well as serious differences in their cultures and social structures, whereas the "Irelands" simply do not. When I visited Ireland, I certainly didn't think of it in terms of the North and the South, I thought of it in terms of "Belfast area," "Dublin Area," "Dingle," etc. This reality is well represented by the fact that we actually have Northern Ireland listed as a region of Ulster. I think this is a good example of how Wikitravel's policy of privileging sovereignty does not necessarily help the traveler. Regardless of what "country" you are in here, you are really just traveling around Ireland, the island. Why privilege politics over travel?
This is also a frustrating practice "for the editor" since I keep accidentally setting up links to places like Talk:Ireland#Regions. In fact, I would have forgotten about this whole thing if I hadn't just accidentally wound up here again. *note: just did this again today :(
I'd like to add that this change would be easy to implement now, as I am implementing the new top-level regions discussed below. A new scheme would actually elevate Northern Ireland's position in the Ireland hierarchy, as it is currently buried in Ulster. --PeterTalk 17:19, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I've been working on adding information to the Ireland pages based on my recent trip which included 2 months in Ireland, and I found that using the four Provinces as a seperate page was kind of annoying, and not that useful from a travel guide point of view.
For one thing, aside from knowing that County Galway, where I spent most of my time, is in Connacht, and that Northern Ireland is most of Ulster, I have no real idea as to where the boundaries of the provinces are, so just seeing the four of them on the main page wasn't very helpful. And I've already been there.
The other problem I was having with the previous setup was that there was very little to say about each province except what counties and cities were within them, without repeating information that would be more useful on the pages for the counties and cities.
So what I did was move all the names of the counties into the regions list, using the provinces only as secondary headings. Of course the disadvantage is that this makes a 30 lines long list, which is a bit of a pain too.
Anyway, what I'm wondering is what people think of this, which way is better, and is there a better way to show users what parts of the country fall into which provinces without making such a long list?
- Neil C 23:54, 10 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I think the main downside to what you did is that we try to keep divisions of a country or region down to about 7+/-2 parts. Take a look at Wikitravel:geographical hierarchy#dividing geographical units for some more details. I think having the 4 province pages is the better bet, even if they are really short. --Evan 02:42, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I agree in theory. But I was also in Ireland this summer, and the new long format would have been much more useful.
I looked through the geographical hierarchy and I can see where you're coming from. The problem in Ireland, more significant than just the short pages in between national and county levels, is that the regional names are rarely, if ever, used, and the names mean nothing to the uninitiated. This makes the Irish situation somewhat different from, for example, the US, where if you say "Mid-west," even if you don't know the country, there is still some geographic meaning.
I was actually hoping someone would have a third option, that would make the provincial breakdown more useful to the traveller without having to make a long list of counties.
-Neil C 15:47, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Can you think of another way to group the counties into a smaller number of regions? Is there a more traditional or well-known high-level grouping than the provinces? If not, I think we should really leave the provinces in there. --Evan 16:50, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Well, I see this topic has fermented for a long time. I am sure there must be a better way to do the top-level regions for Ireland—currently we have a region (Ulster) within Ireland that overlaps the entirety of Northern Ireland, which is in a different country. Worst of all, it leads to a disambiguation page! I'll look into this some more. --PeterfitzgeraldTalk 19:13, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
Here's a map of a new regions proposal, based on the regions that the country itself promotes. I will allow some time for others to comment and, if no objections, I'll plunge forward with a new regional hierarchy for Ireland. --PeterfitzgeraldTalk 16:13, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
<own horn toot>Oh wow! I forgot how nice my map was!</own horn toot> Is it safe to say that I should plunge forward with this, as no one has objected? --PeterTalk 03:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Peter, this acutally looks good, IMHO! The map looks very good too :). Are these the Fáilte Ireland (official tourist agency) regions? That would probably be the best way to sort out the counties on a tourist website! I'd say, plunge forward --The.Q 08:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
As I look at your map again, I think you may need to show the location of some of the main towns also, to give the traveller a good idea as to what's where! --The.Q 08:28, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, I finally got an endorsement and no one has opposed the new scheme over the past month, so I'm going to change over from the existing regional hierarchy to this one. I will make sure to transfer all existing content (to the extent that it is possible) and to avoid orphaning any cities. And yes these are the official Fáilte Ireland regions, with the one exception that I have not created a separate Dublin region. I think the official Dublin region fits just fine as a subregion of East Coast & Midlands. --PeterTalk 17:06, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
These are a few thoughts, if I thought harder about it (which I will do!) I'd possibly change a few of them. I'll come back to this. --The.Q 08:20, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, I said I'd think about it, and I did! Each of the traditional counties in Ireland has one (or sometimes two) town(s) which is known as the county seat. This is usually the largest town in the county, frequently the administrative centre of the county also, although this is not absolute. For each of the regions, then, I have written below the county towns (and their respective counties), in what I would consider order of importance. I would then leave it up to your judgement as to which of them you could include on your map, taking into account how much space you have, Etc.
Does this help, or make it more difficult??!! --The.Q 10:24, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
That most certainly does help, and with more things than just the maps. You can see from the two maps I have added to the Ireland page what I have incorporated. I have now also implemented the new regional hierarchy throughout Wikitravel. There are now region pages for each of the Fáilte Ireland regions, which could use some attention from a knowledgeable editor such as yourself (I have good travel knowledge only about the Dingle Peninsula, as far as Ireland is concerned). You might notice that I also avoided splitting counties across the top-level regions, as Fáilte Ireland does, because to do so would make things less clear (IMO) for contributors in a wiki-environment. --PeterTalk 00:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Hi, I just tried to tidy up the Destinations/ Cities putting 9 in each list as is standard on wikitravel.
I tried to base the cities on the great list from The.Q above. I don't mind if they are changed
From the existing list I removed Dundalk (I would say not a highlight of Ireland) *Dromineer(perhaps a little too specialist, I put a mention in on the sailing section of the artcle.) *Carlow (I think can go as well, someone well meaning has elevated the place of Carlow, and though it is a nice town agian it is not a highlight of Ireland)
Anyway feel free to change these around they are just some ideas. Hope it has been useful Meltwaterfalls 08:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
"There are many Irish people who will hold visitors in higher esteem if they make the effort to learn and speak some basic Irish phrases, especially in tourist centres and pubs."
as an Irishman in all the times i have seen any foreign visitor attempt to speak Irish it has generally benn met with eith curious amusement or downright disdain (esp. Americans)
the main reason for this is the low level of spoken irish in ireland so most irish people will be unable to understand even simple phrases if they are mispronunced (cead mile failte is the most frequently mangled expression), unless i can see some evidence that tourists are encouraged ot speak irish in the gaeltacht I would be in favour of deleting this passage as I and every other Irish person I know would consider any attempt by a tourist to speak irish generally a faux pas and would consider the above statement bad advice and liable in some extreem circumstances to cause trouble
. any thoughts ,note I wont change this for some timee to give people time to respond.18.104.22.168 19:59, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
Don't agree with above. You are giving a personal opinion and taking an extreme view regarding the Irish language. My experience is that visitors who attempt Irish are received with good manners and treated with respect. I think it is the same as somebody trying out a few French phrases in Paris. User: Ciaranc
As Ciaran says this a personal opinion.The user is being ignorant and disingenuous.Couldn't see anyone taking offense at this.Unfortuantely some Irish people dislike Irish due to it being obligatory in education here.
Can we not change the comment on the main page that says no need to speak Irish.Instead you could put 'Using Irish is not necessary but if used will be met with surprise. User: diarmuidh
"However, some native Irish speakers may take offense if you call Irish "Gaelic" as this is the incorrect term and refers to Scottish Gaelic."
Gaelic is a perfectly correct term for the Irish language, particularly for the dialect which is spoken in the Donegal Gaeltacht. However, 'gaelic' is, unfortunately, also a very common abbreviation for the sport Gaelic Football, which can cause confusion for the amazing number of Irish people who don't know that 'Gaelic' is a correct term for the language. Anyway, Wikipedia [] has more.
I think the disclaimer and mutant quickbar that squeezes both UK and RoI info into one is going too far, and I really don't want to see the rest of the article turn into "it's X, except Northern Ireland, where it's Y". This is the only article for the Republic and should focus on the Republic -- stuff specific to Northern Ireland belongs in that article and only that article. Jpatokal 13:09, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
The only reason there is a problem is that we are using an unnecessary country quickbar, when a simple Ireland region page would work just just fine. Ahem and ahem. --PeterTalk 16:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
It's not just the quickbar. It doesn't serve anybody's purpose to have the rest of the article turn into "the currency is the euro, except in NI, where it's the pound, and the railway operator is Iarnród Éireann, except in NI, where it's British Railways, and Irish is the official first language, except in NI, where it's not, and...". Jpatokal 23:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Hi Peter. Thanks for all your efforts on this page. However, I admit that I also share some of Jpatokal's concerns. While using a geographical feature to represent two or more political entities obviously has some advantages for a traveler, it is going to be very difficult to maintain. Not only will almost every statement require an exclusion clause such as those referred to by Jpatokal, but in the case of Ireland we are opening ourselves up for a constant edit war with Unionists who will oppose classifications that imply that the north is part of a united Ireland. Personaly, I think the traveler (and for that matter, the contributor) would be better served if this page covered the republic only. Anyway, this is just my personal opinion, but please give it some thought. Then later, if you decide to make changes based on our concerns, let me know if I can help (although I am far from an Irish expert - in fact I had to check Wikipedia to find out whether it was the Unionists or Nationalists that wanted the north to remain part of the UK!). Take it easy. WindHorse 00:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, fair enough. I just couldn't resist the urge to take a cheap shot at the quickbar. I suppose the best way to handle this will be to simply have a clear disclaimer at the top and in the region description for NI that this page does not address issues pertaining specifically to NI, just to ROI. I won't be able to take care of any of this until next week because I will not have internet access. So if anyone else would like to tidy things up on this article, please plunge forward! --PeterTalk 03:10, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
OK. Unless somebody beats me to it, I'll have a bash over the weekend. Have a good time in the mountains. WindHorse 03:14, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
<holds hand up in guilt> Sorry! This is probably my fault. I've done most of the changes mentioned above, but I was acting in good faith! I thought the decision arrived at over the last few days was that this page would cover the island of Ireland, and then there wouldn't be a need for two separate pages, i.e. Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I must have misread the situation, please accept my apologies. </holds hand up in guilt> WH, I'll leave the changes to you, as I won't be at my computer over the weekend (Despite the terrible weather here in Ireland over the last 6 weeks, weeds continue to grow and grass still needs to be cut in my garden, so that's my project for this weekend!) --The.Q 09:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
No need for an apologies, and I agree the debate was unclear, especially as it was being conducted on two separate talk pages. I also lost thread for a while. Anyway, that's how things progress - a nudge there and a change here. I'm just happy that you agree with our conclusions. I'll have a look at the page over weekend, though personally would prefer to help you in your garden in Ireland. It is such a beautiful land....Take it easy. WindHorse 10:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
We should have a clearer delimitation of the content limits of this article. The way I think I read the rough agreement from preceding discussions, is that this article should cover information relevant to visitors of the island in general, and to visitors to the "Republic of Ireland," as the republic a) covers the majority of the island and b) does not have its own separate article. Content relevant to visitors of specifically Northern Ireland, however, should remain in the Northern Ireland article, for the practical reason that it is a much smaller subdivision of the island, and that anyone visiting Northern Ireland will read that article. This delineation should ideally prevent the article from mutating into a comparison of the two countries.
A couple of practices would IMHO be useful to keep this content organized:
1). Include a disclaimerbox at the top of the article explaining, "This article covers both topics about the island of Ireland in general and topics specific to the ‘Republic of Ireland.’ Please find information specific to Northern Ireland in its own article."
I'm pretty sure the disclaimerbox would be useful, although I'm not at all certain about points 2 & 3. Does this seem reasonable? And are there any other suggestions? --PeterTalk 19:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)
Peter, I agree with you, and I plunged forward to make what changes i thought necessary. I thought this was all sorted out during the summer. --The.Q(t)(c) 07:33, 12 December 2007 (EST)
I remembered this being a good article, but it's in really bad shape right now. Section headers are all over the place, ugly front-linked external links everywhere, ridiculous amounts of information about car rentals—it's a mess! So I add the style tag. --PeterTalk 17:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Tried to add a link to Rail travel in Ireland, a relatively new travel topic, but it's appearing in red despite letter for letter accuracy with the target page. Am I doing something wrong with my markup? Thanks Jamesbrownontheroad 05:02, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
I'm an arse. Fixed it myself (rogue capital letter messing up the link) Jamesbrownontheroad 05:03, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
Anyone mind if I get rid of this table? We don't use this for any other country article, and it overwhelms the page with information about various companies in such a way that I feel intimidated to even try to read it. All the html is likely off-putting to unversed contributors as well. I'd reduce it to a short list, and reduce all the extensive information in it that could likely be accessed through the agencies' websites. Objections? --PeterTalk 16:04, 27 March 2009 (EDT)
I have also removed the long list of generic car hire companies. Absolutely no need for this as car hire in Ireland is a very simple matter. --Burmesedays 00:18, 28 March 2010 (EDT)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of a policy regarding the number of cities that can appear in an article. But there is something seriously wrong with an article about Irish tourism that does not mention Killarney once in any part of it.
Killarney had been a major tourist destination for over 250 years. It was for a long time the major tourist destination in Ireland, with almost every bus tour going through it. (It lost that mantle to Galway recently I believe).
I suggest removing Letterkenny or Limerick. No offence to either place, but both are new to the tourist trail, and particulary Letterkenny is popular with Irish tourists rather than international tourists.--Dmol 16:05, 21 February 2010 (EST)
It will be good to come up with a more solid consensus for the Irish cities/towns list. I agree with the post at the end of the #Irish hierarchy revisited thread that Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Galway all should be in the list, as they are clearly Ireland's four largest cities (Limerick is less of a tourist destination, but travel, and hence Wikitravel, isn't just about tourism).
Because one of our goals in this exercise is to try to get a nice geographical spread, I'd prefer that we keep northerly Letterkenny. On that same note, I see we have three cities all from one region, the Southeast (Kilkenny, Waterford, and Wexford). Perhaps we could add Killarney and remove Wexford?
Also, lets remember that the cities/OD lists are for navigational purposes, and as such are relatively unimportant. Even important cities, towns, etc. that are not included here can and should be described in the see, do, buy, eat, drink, etc. sections of the article itself. --PeterTalk 17:43, 21 February 2010 (EST)
OK, I'll take out Wexford (which is already mentioned as a county) and add Killarney if no-one objects in the next few days.--Dmol 04:19, 2 March 2010 (EST)