User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ireland Meet Up[edit]

Hi RA. Spotted some chatter re the above. Have been away from Wikipedia for some time but seem to be getting drawn back in again. So whats the story? Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you've seen it? Hope you'll be able to make it. --RA (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Very much hope to be there. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cognates[edit]

RA, I've reverted your recent edits at British Isles. Please discuss at the Talk page to explain what point you're trying to make. The sentence structure appears artificial and awkward, and is not "plain English". If you want to simply make the point that "Britain" is derived from "Britannia", what not just say so? If I'm missing a subtlety somehow, please discuss first. --HighKing (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I'll drop a line. --RA (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Times[edit]

Hi, I just heard it on the radio, and couldn't find it online myself. I guess it'll show up over the coming days - I don't know if they publish everything online immediately. All the best --Brian Fenton (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. I'll keep my eyes peeled and add it in when it gets published. --RA (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROI links[edit]

Hello RA, tell me, what was the problem with most of the fairly straight forward links? They simply added a little clarity and insight, like 1918 elecs., First Dáil, Westmin. to Commons, etc.. I didn't alter the texting (other than one small add.on, ok), but it's a little odd that Soloheadbeg for example, may not be a sub-link? I'm not trying to roll out a discussion, it's just that refraining to be factual really baffles and makes an odd impression. Another point, its certainly accepted that the B&Ts terrorised, but really tortured, citizens? There's a huge difference, why I feel "allegedly tortured" (correct would be terrorised) is justified again in the interest of credibility. Other articles are clear in using "suspected" in the case of all those informers, which also sounds more credible? Perhaps I should have edited singularly rather than suffer a bulk reversal due to one or the other disfavoured link? Greetings, Osioni (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osioni, I accidentally reverted your edit at 22:46. My finger slipped on my watchlist and I clicked rollback on your edit. For some reason my internet cut out so it took me a few minutes to self revert. I self-reverted at 22:50. This restored all of your edits, including your edit at 22:50.
I'm sorry for any confusion caused. --RA (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, thanks RA for the explanation, no harm done, will try again as soon as I have time. Osioni (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meet up[edit]

Hello RA, On the meet up, I was wondering while you're all there if you could ask around and if anybody is from or near Limerick, if they could, at their leisure, take a picture of Croom Castle so we could upload it to the page Croom Castle. There's no rush, of course, but getting the word out might just get a picture back to us one of these days. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep my ears open for the right moment :-) --— RA (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch, Malke 2010 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles: "these islands"[edit]

I made a slight correction to the format of the reference you inserted - you put "quoute" rather than "quote" so the words of the quote weren't showing. But there seems to be a typo in the quote itself which you might like to look at - "..recognized by internationally geographers..." ...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ghmyrtle. I've fixed the tpyo in the quote. --— RA (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we're talking about "typos" - "recognized"? Should it be "recognised"? I don't want to be WP:BOLD (because I don't want to be bold with BI pages...) and it's a really small thing (and I don't entirely accept the idea that this is a US/non-US English issue...) but as a WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN pedant it doesn't strike me as odd. TFOWR 09:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a direct quote - which we should leave unamended (sez another pedant)... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...hence the "quote=" in the ref. D'oh! One or other of you may find {{minnow}} useful; I'm going to hide in shame somewhere and hope you're both good enough to avoid mocking me too much... TFOWR 09:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Google Books Reference for the book ... --HighKing (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of the naming explanation in that (US-written) book (pages 8-10) sound suspiciously like they are using Wikipedia as a source - a growing habit, even in "academic" sources! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel churlish pointing out that "C. Carpenter" isn't credited with being one of the writers for this work, but a consultant editor. Has a BA Geography from Oxford though, so on balance .... but then he makes the mistake of continually referring to "Republic of Ireland", and states "However, in popular usage, "Ireland" sometimes refers to the republic. The historic name Eire, which was the official name of what is now the Republic of Ireland from 1937 through 1949, is also used." Like .. what a very British POV... There's lots of ... British naming ... in this book. For example, the chapter "Ireland" starts off correctly, and then on page 54 states that the "Official country name" is "Republic of Ireland". What tosh. Completely discredits this book. --HighKing (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Meet up[edit]

Did you get to the meet up at Dún Laoghaire? If so, were you able to get the word out to anybody in or near Limerick to get a picture of Croom Castle? Hope you all had a good time if you made it there. Be sure and tell me about it.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. I did ask around but there were no Limerick folk there. I am from County Mayo through and living in Cork, so I pass near enough by it on my way up to be able to make a stop some time.
A write-up on the meeting it here. --RA (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-render[edit]

What are the plans for this template, {{No-render}}? It is currently broken, I am wondering if it is worth it to fix it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's purposely "broken". The point of it is that an editor can put something inside it (e.g. {{no-render|this is my text}}). That text will be visible to an editor but invisible to a reader. It differs from HTML comment tags in that text "hidden" from a reader inside a comment tag is downloaded and viewable on the page source. Text hidden from a reader using the no-render template is not rendered when Mediawiki parses the wikicode. Hence it is not downloaded or viewable via the page source.
One use of it is to leave large (or many) comments for editors in the wikicode of page without affecting download times for readers. --RA (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By broken, I meant that it is transcluding the template {{2}}, due to the fact that there is a typo in the use of the second argument. In other words, why are you using {{{2|}} instead of {{{2|}}}? I still don't really see the point, but I particularly don't know why you need to transclude a deleted template. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Typo. Now fixed. Thanks. --RA (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added examples in the documentation, and when I type "view source" for this page, they both produce the same result, which is absolutely nothing. So, it looks like the second parameter doesn't really do anything, at least for my browser. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I just noticed that (I hadn't tested it). I just did a sandbox test and it looks like Mediawiki strips out HTML comments before rendering the page anyway. (The sandbox page contains the text <!-- this is a test -->, but that text is not seen if you go into the source.)
The assumption behind the template was that Mediawiki did not do this. If it does then there is no point to the template. Can you delete it? --RA (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I was thinking the same thing when I happened upon it, but thought I would check with you first, just in case I was missing something. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:BISE, WP:SPA[edit]

Hi RA. Please don't refer to other editors' edit counts at WT:BISE. Focus on making sound arguments, backed by policy and/or precedents. TFOWR 11:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the user's edit count that I was referring to but a consistent nature to their contributions over the past few years. As you know, I rarely comment on these things. However, on that occasion, and with regard to the user's contribution to WP:BISE, I thought it worthwhile to draw others' attention to it (in a neutral manner).
My reasons for supporting or opposing their proposal were given separately and were not based on their edit history. --RA (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Do please avoid commenting on things like that at BISE, however - it shouldn't have any impact on the eventual decision anyway, and it tends to produce more "heat than light". TFOWR 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree with you. --RA (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countries of Europe[edit]

I answered the question you posed here, thinking it was a response from another editor. I wondered why he would bring a discussion about the Northern Ireland page up there! Would you like to answer the second part of my question for him too? Daicaregos (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's solely a matter of NPOV. All significant views given in RS need to be represented neutrally. Hypothetically, I suppose, there are reasons why we may "choose to suppress" information in the interest of achieving NPOV (e.g. fringe theories or undue weight, etc.) but since it's a hypothetical question I don't know what reasons there may be for the example you give.
(On the question of Northern Ireland, as you know, the desire for NPOV and to not "suppress" information is the main problem I see with the introduction to that article at present: I feel it cherry picks references, even those from the same source [e.g. the UK govt.], to arrive at a certain text while setting other references aside and the ignoring issues around what to call NI that are described in RS.)
However, WP:V and the desire for NPOV however is quite different from saying that the Basque Country or Wales should appear in a table of "countries of Europe", when the sense in which we mean country in that context is a sovereign state. It is not enough solely to produce a reference that uses a certain word. It is necessary to know what is meant by that word in that source. In the case of Wales and the Basque Country, they do not belong on the template because they are not sovereign states. In the same way, my dear Ireland, while verifiable and commonly called a country, should not be listed on the template.
Renaming the template may clear that up but I feel it is sorry that it needs to happen (or at least the particular reason why it has happened in this case). I appreciate your perspective - and personally we are of common mind WRT Wales' "country-ness" - but I feel you are allowing it to cloud your judgement. --RA (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My position on articles (including lists and templates) is that they should do exactly what they say on the tin. If it is called 'list of countries …', any territory that reliable sources verify as a country should be included on that article. 'Sovereign state' and 'country' are not synonymous. It is not up to us as editors to define a 'country'. It is our job to reflect what reliable sources say are countries. That way, editor POV is removed. If reliable sources say a territory is a country and it is not included on the article because editors want the article to mean something else (sovereign state perhaps), the name of the article should be changed to reflect its content. It may be simplistic, but this is my understanding of Neutral point of view, a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. I am also sorry that the name of the template is to be changed, as I would rather the UK countries were included on the original template. Millions of people in the UK (and elsewhere) consider England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to be countries, despite being perfectly aware that they are not sovereign; a valid a viewpoint that should be reflected on Wikipedia. Sorry you feel my judgement of NPOV to be clouded. Daicaregos (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daicaregos, you may not appreciate that within Northern Ireland, any reference to Northern Ireland as "a country" carries a great deal of political and cultural baggage. People in the British/Unionist/mainly Protestant majority are divided between those who refer to their "country" as Northern Ireland, and those who refer to their "country" as the United Kingdom; in the Irish/Nationalist/mainly Catholic minority almost all regard the "country" as Ireland, and take offence at references to Northern Ireland as a "country" or "province". So, for anyone in Northern Ireland to refer to the region as a "country" reliably indicates that they are from a particular section of the political/ethnic/religious spectrum. Many neutral terms are available (region, part, jurisdiction etc.), and these can be used without causing any offence, so to maintain WP as a neutral space it is best to change references to Northern Ireland as "country" to any of those neutral terms. Brocach (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Kingdom of Ireland[edit]

Hi - well of course you are entitled to challenge my amendments. But dismissing photographic evidence in deference to the disjointed discussion page isn't the most objective approach either. The talk page fails to account for the fact that all other articles on states past and present display arms in their fullest achievement e.g. with badges and supporters where they were in established use. Coins and buildings from the era invariably include either crown or crown/supporters. Your dismissiveness as to what you can 'read into' on the back of a coin is quite staggering - that is historical fact, as much as any other verifiable source. The technicalities you have argued fail to address why the shield (or coat of arms as you define it - for this is not Wikipedia's definition of a coat of arms) and not the device or full achievement, should be used as the heraldic representation of the KoI. I'm not into edit wars so I'll leave it at that, I'm just highlighting that between the current KoI article and the Coat_of_arms_of_Ireland article there is nothing that communicates how widespread the use of the crowned harp device was. Anyone who has visited Dublin and seen all the places it is used is left to conclude that the articles are suffering from biased/POV editing.

Gisbwoy —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice[edit]

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 18:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom voting system RFC.

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween[edit]

Hi, noted your name being praised on Halloween talkpage as having put in a lot of effort into the article. There is a lengthy discussion on the historical origin of Halloween. While post 18Century Halloween creations (such as 'guising') are contemporary customs, there is a heated discussion about the historical origin of Halloween. My own knowledge of the subject is quite limited so not worth much. Your input on this discussion would be most welcome.Xavier 21 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with replacing the place name template[edit]

I just noticed this while editing the Clonsilla article, but I'm sure that it applies elsewhere. When you replace (lang-ga|Cluain Saileach) with (Irish place name|Cluain Saileach), the category "Untranslated place name" (or whatever it's called) appears. There doesn't seem to be any way (that I know) of deleting this category. I simply reverted your edit, and the category disappeared. What to do about this? Hohenloh + 10:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware {{Irish place name}} has a second parameter for the meaning of the Irish langaugae version. i.e. adding {{Irish place name|Cluain Saileach|meadow of the willow or sally tree}} to the article would mean that the Untranslated place name category wouldn't appear. which I've done

The Signpost: 27 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive_6&oldid=1142068307"