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)
Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland
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)
- Disambiguation page sounds good -- Huttite 03:31, 2 Apr 2004 (EST)
- Works for me -- Professorbiscuit
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. --Peter Talk 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. --Peter Talk 17:19, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
- Here, here! Let's do it.. and just to avoid politics we'll add the Template:Disclaimerbox, which is also used on Golan Heights and is semi-considered an Israeli territory, though the breadcrumb suggests it's a large area in the Middle East. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Usefulness of the Provinces
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)
Irish hierarchy revisited
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. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 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. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 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? --Peter Talk 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. --Peter Talk 17:06, 6 July 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.188.8.131.52 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
Here are some external links for Ireland that some WikiTravel users added and may be used for reference.
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: Korea Borneo 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)
- The difference is that there are no countries called "Korea", "Borneo" or "Timor". Even Republic of Macedonia has been moved to Macedonia (Republic). Jpatokal 09:13, 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. --Peter Talk 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)