Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland: Difference between revisions

As I said I would to Brocach the last day I was active, I have brought this issue to a board of peers, though Scolaire sort of beat me to it in a way.

Having failed with trying to have the County Londonderry categories deleted and replaced with County Derry ones for GAA articles amongst other back-door attempts to bypass IMoS, Brocach recently went about amending see also links for almost all Derry GAA club articles. Whilst he was correct to fix the link, i.e. "List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs#Derry" to "List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry" [1], [2], he also added the #Derry to other articles for example: [3] and [4].

Due to the potential IMoS violation ([5] - using the Lissan GAC article as the general example) I amended the links further by adding "GAA" after Derry to give: "List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry GAA". For this hash link to work I also modified the actual article by removing the pipe-link for all the County GAA's so that it would state "Derry GAA" etc. Brocach reverted all changes, citing no need for the article to state GAA after each county board as "GAA county" is stated at the top of the article. As well citing that there is no need for it as IMoS backs it. Note that IMoS only states "usually be abbreviated to", not that it must be:

Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles. Where an entity uses a particular name, regardless of whether it is Derry or Londonderry, use that name for the entity; thus County Derry Post (newspaper), High Sheriff of County Londonderry, former Derry Central Railway, North West Liberties of Londonderry, and Derry GAA (which will usually be abbreviated to Derry).

Secondly I noticed the following IMoS violating template: Template:Derry clubs. I moved the article to Template:Derry GAA clubs. I then amended all attached articles to match. Brocach reverted all of these changes too with no apparent reason given.

Seeing as the whole situation is a mess of IMoS violation or potential IMoS violation I propose the following:

1. Move Template:Derry clubs to Template:Derry GAA clubs
2. Unpipe-link all county board section links in List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland so that they say Derry GAA not Derry etc. especially seeing as the name of it according to Derry GAA is "The Derry County Board of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) (Irish: Cummann Lúthchleas Gael Coiste Contae Dhoire) or Derry GAA is one of the 32 county boards of the GAA in Ireland" - not "Derry" on it own.
3. Amend related articles so that they state "List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry GAA" etc. - requires above proposal to be implemented to work
4. A declaration in IMoS that "(which will usually be abbreviated to Derry)" should apply only in an in-text context within GAA related articles after it is used fully in it's first instance. This means stating "Derry GAA" not "Derry" in links/templates/categories.

In my view these are a very reasonable set of proposals to clarify what is actually being referred to and to fix the IMoS violations and potential violations. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Obviously I support my proposals, but just making it crystal. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this silly moving around should stop as soon as possible and at all levels, including the moves proposed at Talk:London GAA Intermediate Football Championship#Requested move and Talk:Leinster GAA Senior Football Championship#Move? (who are clearly controversial, although mr. B. fails to see that.) The Banner talk 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. All county board section links in List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland are not links to Derry GAA. This proposal is a transparent attempt to push a POV with regard to one county under the guise of generally "fixing" GAA articles that do not need to be fixed. Scolaire (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposal 2: Firstly because the proposal is badly worded. Since the proposal is to unpipe-link all county board section links, it should say "...so that they say X GAA not X" to make clear that all 32 counties will be equally affected, rather than specifying a single county (Derry), which only causes confusion. Secondly because making such changes for all 32 counties just to address a disagreement between editors over a single county (Derry) is bad policy IMO. Oppose proposal 3 for essentially the same reasons, plus the fact that List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland would have to have section headings of "Galway GAA", "Leitrim GAA" etc. which are redundant and pointless in a list of GAA clubs. Oppose proposal 4 because it involves adding complexity and ambiguity to IMOS. Common sense should dictate when "Derry" or "Derry GAA" is used. IMOS is not a blunt instrument to force one format or another to be used. Support proposal 1, provided all other templates in that category are also renamed. It is one instance of where "GAA clubs" actually provides clarity. Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. — Jon C.^ॐ 10:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The proposal is a model of clarity and fairness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. (This discussion should in any case be taking place at at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gaelic games.) There is absolutely no violation of the IMoS: in fact the IMoS provides that "Derry GAA" will usually be abbreviated to "Derry". The name of any GAA county's football team, for example, is just the county name, e.g. "Derry" or "Tipperary". Mabuska complains above that I reverted dozens of changes he made without discussion - well, if one makes changes without discussion, and they are reverted, one is expected to open a discussion on the talk page. Did he do that? No. His reverted template change would have left Derry as the only GAA county template with the "GAA" after the name of the county - I prefer consistency. That template has a talk page. Did he take the matter there? Of course not.

So, having had controversial edits reverted, and having failed to utilise the talk pages, he comes here - avoiding the Gaelic Games page - to seek support to make hundreds of edits to GAA articles in order to address a supposed IMoS problem that doesn't exist.

Incidentally, Mabuska claimed weeks ago on my talk page, and does so here again, that it was I who inserted "usually abbreviated to Derry". I didn't, but I completely agree with it, both as a statement of fact and as an IMoS guideline. Brocach (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you reverted moves before a discussion (accidentally going the other way than your wishes) was ended. So why complain about non-discussion when you plain ignore an ongoing-discussion? The Banner talk 21:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting controversial moves and opening a discussion is normal per WP:BRD. You should look it up. Brocach (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But reverting a move while the discussion is still running and is turning another way is not according to WP:BRD. No matter how hard you scream WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Banner talk 15:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose 2,3,4. I don't really care where the template sits . The rest appear to be a solution in search of a problem Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before proceeding further, can you please specify which guideline in IMOS is being violated or potentially violated, and how? Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "usually" is an accident waiting to happen. "Usually" has no place in a manual; it either is or it is not. Toleave it in place is a licence for chaos. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Glenullin GAC: "The club is a member of the Derry GAA." It would be inappropriate to abbreviate this to "Derry". Usually, however, it is both appropriate and proper to abbreviate it (see my comment here here, a less smart-ass response). If you can phrase that in a way that is not "a licence for chaos", please do. Scolaire (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, can anybody specify which guideline in IMOS is being violated or potentially violated, and how? Scolaire (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must we really play game of "I'm a silly bugger"? How tiresome. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to remind you of WP:CIVIL? Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal begins "Seeing as the whole situation is a mess of IMoS violation or potential IMoS violation". What does this mean? It's a simple question. Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Laurel's comment. Acting dumb in a clear attempt at stone-walling the issue along with failing to provide an actual proper reason for objecting to the proposals. How?...

1. "All county board section links in List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland are not links to Derry GAA." - what does "etc." means? Do likewise for the rest of the links, i.e. remove the pipe-link - not change all to "Derry GAA".
2. The proposals obviously focuses on one county - what is the title of this thread? The suggestion to remove the pipe-link for the rest of the links in that one article is for the sake of article consistency if we did remove the pipe in use on the Derry GAA link.
3. Accusations of POV pushing to try to deride the proposal can be easily turned around as your opposition can be regarded as backing back-door attempts to bypass IMoS. Also note how there is no objection in the proposal to using "Derry" in the text of a GAA article after "Derry GAA" has been used in the first instance. That's really anti-Derry POV pushing isn't it?
4. An editor as experienced as you knows the IMoS and how it is being violated. Londonderry for the county and Derry for the city. The "usually abbreviated to" for Derry GAA is a recent addition by Brocach reworded by yourself with the obvious intent to use "Derry" on it's own when referring to the county. I removed it stating it wasn't discussed, you put it back in stating let's discuss it now. We never had a proper discussion on it so as far as I am concerned it has no real authority of community backing. At the start I could agree to the sense of it, I no longer do seeing as it is clearly being used out of the context it was apparently for (before your rewording of it): when used in the text of a GAA article after the full term is already fully used in it's first instance. It makes no sense whatsoever in regards to links or templates and in that case it can be easily classified as IMoS violating and so that line needs clarified hence my proposal to add such clarification to it.

Simple? Or are you going to continue playing the "I don't know, I don't see the problem" card? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note the comment of Scolaire's that he linked to above [6] - shows the lack of reason from Scolaire in regards to this issue. It is clear that Laurel proposed using the full title of "Derry GAA" instead of Derry or County Derry etc. with Scolaire convoluting Laurel's comment to mean stating "Derry GAA (or more formally the "Derry GAA County Board")" instead etc. which they then used as their reason to oppose Laurel's suggestion. And who is POV pushing? As such I will reserve any future responses to comments that have some form of reason. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. I am neither dumb nor playing dumb. I am not playing card games or any other games. I am not attempting to stonewall any issue; I merely asked a civil question in the interests of helping the discussion along. The comment about POV-pushing was ill-advised, and I have withdrawn it. I hope you feel my detailed reasons for opposing three of the four proposals are clearer. However, my basic question is the same, and I feel that it remains unanswered: how can following IMOS guidelines be a violation of IMOS? If IMOS ackowledges that there are exceptions to the rule, and specifies that "Derry GAA", abbreviated to "Derry" is one of those exceptions (and I added that bit after a lengthy discussion, with no objections at the time), then how can anybody violate IMOS by following that guideline? Scolaire (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's spell it out then; the IMOS is so vague as to be unuseable. The vagueness was only recently put in without adequate discussion. It should never have been allowed. It remained because others were persuaded that the ambiguity in it would not be abused. Certaineditors have abused that trust. The proposed set (and by the way it's a set, not a preferendum) remedies the problem. It is also consistent with the Jan 3 decision at WP:CFD on Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers. That decision reflects what reasonable, neutral people think about such issues. To them, the issues involved are really rather trivial. If it was up to them, the proposal would pass. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think that adding extra layers of complexity to a "vague" guideline will make it less vague. All it will do is multiply the possible interpretations that people can edit-war over. You are also being inconsistent. You said that 'the word "usually" is an accident waiting to happen; "usually" has no place in a manual", but you are in favour of keeping the word and adding more accidents-in-waiting to it! And, by the way, I don't know what you have spelled out but you still haven't answered my simple question:

What in IMOS is being violated and how? If the answer is so obvious, why on earth can you not say it straight? Scolaire (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be just too embarrassing to admit that no IMoS guideline is violated, and that this whole discussion is therefore premised on a mistake. Brocach (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, after you have changed the Manual of Style according to your wishes and made it as vague and ambiguous as possible. It is an old trick: change the rules and then claim that you did not break the new rules (as you would have done under the old ones). The Banner talk 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And so concludes Match 1 of "I'm a silly bugger". Tune in next week folks for the round we like to call "Let me spell it out ffor you again". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Scolaire - no-one else seemed to misunderstand the "badly worded" proposal so far. @Brocach - actually the IMoS discussion page is where this should of been put, not here or at the GAA project page. Obviously you would agree to the problem you added into the IMoS - made worse by Scolaire rewording it to make it more vague. Scolaire can go on about what is being violated in IMoS when their editing of your addition created his vindication for stating "what's wrong?" whilst also creating the vagueness and lack of clarity in it that is at present being abused to vindicate the usage of "Derry" in a non-context manner giving the impression that it represents the name of the county rather than simply a GAA county board.

There is obviously no consensus for Brocach's addition and Scolaire's rewording of it seeing as so far 4 out of 6 editors back change (yes too small a sample for even a rough consensus) - so a simpler solution might be to propose removing it altogether - but clarity would be a better way to move forward, hence proposal 4.

1. Counter-proposal - I could drop proposal 2 and 3 and replace them with a proposal for the removal of the "#Derry" part of the link, which was only added into most by Brocach recently once the "County Derry" categories he created had got deleted by the bot after a CfD.
2. Counter-proposal 2 - Instead of counter-proposal 1, we could drop proposal 2 and 3 and pipe-link [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry]] to [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Derry GAA clubs]] instead. This puts it into a proper context and avoids the obvious (and quite purposeful in light of Brocach's recent actions) hint that it is referring to "County Derry" instead of "Derry GAA". This means no pipe-links in that article need to be removed and leaves no chance of alleged broken links and requires little effort by a single editor to implement. This counter-proposal would sort Scolaire's stated concerns with proposals 2 and 3.

Oh yes Scolaire, it is generally accepted that if you edit a comment you've already made and have already had responses to, that you don't edit it afterwards but make a new comment after it. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, Mabuska. It is a long-established practice to strike through a comment if somebody has found it problematic, and make a new comment after the strike-through. Try to leave out the ad hominem, will you? Scolaire (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ad hominem. There is no problem with strikes, though extra info you should add in a new comment directly after it. Otherwise it can be considered deceptive seeing as it still had the old time-stamp. Though I will concede it has no importance and makes little difference to this topic.

Care to voice your opinion on the rest of my previous comment which is quite relevant to this discussion? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just stupid! I am replying on your user talk page. And no, I don't care to voice my opinion on this discussion, which has become farcical. Scolaire (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a sub-section just after "Poll" for a counter-proposal poll. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to the end, which is where new discussion belongs. Scolaire (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodged I'd have much greater sympathy if you where consistent in your position and ensured consistency after your proposals. Your move of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers I supported but now we have one category out of 100's with an odd name, do you plan to clean up Category:Gaelic games players by sport ?

You've moved some county competition articles but not all , why?

Why is Derry being singled out ? Will a consensus here be used to do that same for Dublin GAA next week?

Why have you bi-passed WP:GAA ? Gnevin (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please raise the issue at Laurel's talk-page as it isn't entirely related to this issue I've raised? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 I've not been idle. The work has commenced at WP:CFD - see Hurlers by GAA county. All supporters welcome.

2 My offer at Tiperary GAA Hurlers was conditional on getting support. That support has been conspicuous by its absence. Instead of carping, help with the heavy lifting.

3 I was edit blocked for 48 hours in defence of Tipperary GAA hurlers. For those that supported, you have a fresh opportunity to defend all that it entails at the WP:ANI case listed below.

4 My next plan of campaign is for the NI hurler categories. After that, I'll commence the camogie cats. All assistance gratefully received. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why just NI hurlers? You need to move these a whole . Propose a multi cat move instead on 1 in isolation but fair enough you're moving the stuff which is good . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As some editors have an issue with proposals 2 and 3, I will suggest alternatives that may meet those concerns:

1. Counter-proposal - I could drop proposal 2 and 3 and replace them with a proposal for the removal of the "#Derry" part of the link, which was only added into most by Brocach recently once the "County Derry" categories he created had got deleted by the bot after a CfD.
2. Counter-proposal 2 - Instead of counter-proposal 1, we could drop proposal 2 and 3 and pipe-link [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Gaelic Athletic Association clubs in Derry]] to [[List_of_Gaelic_games_clubs_in_Ireland#Derry|List of Derry GAA clubs]] instead. This puts it into a proper context and avoids the obvious (and quite purposeful in light of Brocach's recent actions) hint that it is referring to "County Derry" instead of "Derry GAA". This means no pipe-links in that article need to be removed and leaves no chance of alleged broken links and requires little effort by a single editor to implement.

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It gets rather confusing when someone offers four proposals, all unnecessary, to address a non-existent violation of IMoS; refuses to identify what part of IMoS is being violated; then makes a "counter-proposal" to his own four proposals, consisting of two equally uncalled for changes. Brocach (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Brocach's comment from the "Proposal" section to here as this is where the voting should be done. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Brocach nowhere did I say I was providing counter-proposals to all four proposals - only for proposals 2 and 3. So please learn to fully read editors comments before responding. Also you are the only editor to disagree with proposal 1 so it can be considered possibly a non-issue, however as three other editors agree with me on the rest shows that there is an issue with the others. Being stubborn for the sake of it doesn't work on Wikipedia as compromise and/or counter-proposals are needed to move things on. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the whole lot to here as new proposals should be made at the bottom, not somewhere in the middle. Scolaire (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Brocach. IMOS cannot violate IMOS, therefore the original proposals were pointless, and modifying them is equally pointless. Scolaire (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI You may wish to consider the proposal for a topic ban on Laurel Lodged here. Brocach (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And off course the proposal for a topic ban against mr. Brocach in the same discussion. The Banner talk 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only really been involved with Brocach not Laurel Lodged in regards to the issues so I have only voiced my opinion in the one I have knowledge of. Otherwise these notifications should not be put here as they don't belong here. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Scolaire's continued insistence the IMoS is actually being violated and willfully so: the IMoS states that Derry GAA will be usually abbreviated to [[Derry GAA|Derry]] - how is this met with Brocach's hash article links? Just to remind everyone this is what they are using: List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry - how does this meet the IMoS? How does this avoid confusing the GAA county for the city or the county of Londonderry? It doesn't. Opposing the addition of "GAA" to the end of the link which is clearly violating IMoS shows that the opposition from Brocach and Scolaire has more to do with POV pushing than anything else.

Scolaire can ignore the obvious fact that several editors agree with my proposals, which clearly shows that there is a problem with what is currently in the IMoS despite what they might try to claim. Maybe they don't want to admit their rewording has got it wrong, maybe they want to ensure the ambiguity remains so that it can be abused, who knows. The counter-proposals I suggested met Scolaire's secondary reasons for objecting (seeing as his original reason was a blunt oppose), and as I suspected he would, he opposed them too. Going by his recent crack-up on my talk page where he decided to totally over-react to a simple comment on etiquette, they have decided to have no further part in this discussion! As was clear to me from the start, Scolaire's opposition is based on a desire to ensure this problem remains in the IMoS regardless of what is proposed.

Like it or not Scolaire, I have identified a problem that arose out of your tinkering with the IMoS and 3 other editors agree with me - so the problem is real. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am really trying to understand you, Mabuska, as someone who has made constructive edits on GAA matters, but I still see no violation. List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland#Derry uses "[[Derry GAA|Derry]]" as an abbreviation for Derry GAA which as the IMoS reasonably notes, is usually abbreviated to [[Derry GAA|Derry]]. You must have noticed that in normal usage, certainly in any media reference to GAA matters, it is absolutely the case that "Derry" is almost always used to refer Derry GAA. In the List of Gaelic games clubs in Ireland, every one of the 32 counties is listed simply by the name of the GAA county in question, and nothing would be added to the usefulness of the list by adding 32 GAAs, and less by adding one "GAA" in the sole case of Derry, presumably to please those who don't like the fact that in the GAA that's how the team, the County Board, and the area administered by the county board are all known. Anyone using a list of Gaelic games club in Ireland is likely to know that, in a list grouped in 32 county sets, the set headed [[Derry GAA|Derry]]) refers not to the city of Derry, nor to the defunct administrative county of Londonderry, but to the GAA county of Derry which has existed for well over a century and has never been called anything else. I can't see the slightest possibility of confusion, and now that you have "explained" the alleged IMoS violation it is clearer than ever that there hasn't been one. Brocach (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What he said.

And please stop with the ad hominem. It is against WP:CIVIL and it's going to result in a report next time. Scolaire (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pot-and-kettle Scolaire - a report would only boomerang considering your actions on this matter. Also it would help matters if you'd actually answer the points and questions I've made. Continually ignoring them only makes my points that you call ad hominem even more valid. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that an attempt to move this towards consensus has begun here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this discussion which is related but not linked to LL and Brocach's GAA tit-for-tats is to be closed, then the only proposal that seems to have overwhelming support (proposal 1) should be implemented seeing as only Brocach opposed it. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented for all the templates at the same time? I would not support one user changing one template and leaving somebody else to do the rest. Scolaire (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion I mentioned above has now closed and the results can be seen here. The specific question about Derry/Derry GAA has been referred on to the IMOS talk page here. Please can we regard the discussion here closed as IMOS is the right place to finally decide on this particular topic. I will let the discussion there run a few days and then close it myself, if nobody else has done so by then. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]