Thank you for updating the Lunar Rover picture. I'm curious about your userbox, and I wonder what is behind the deviation for Eire not following wp:commonname. Is is Irish nationalists wanting to make a point that Ireland is not united, NI protestants who take the republic being called by its wp:commonname as a claim on NI, or both? Sorry if I'm being rude, but I thought it'd be ok to ask with it being in a box and all. I also find the question interesting because I participate in WP:RM discussions, and this kind of problem crops up from time to time. ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been interminable, exhausting, and enormously tedious discussions about what title Irish articles should bear. There is an island of Ireland (article Ireland) which was partitioned by the British in 1922, creating a new statelet in the north called Northern Ireland. Because the island and the southern state have the same name, Ireland, different titles are required to distinguish a geographic article from a social-political one.

The official name of the state is Ireland, defined by Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland: "The name of the state is Éire, and in the English language, Ireland." (Éire is the term in the Irish language.) It is neither officially nor unofficially called "Republic of Ireland", nevertheless, Irish Wikipedia editor opinion was outnumbered in discussion by foreign editors who forced through the decision that the article about the state should be called Republic of Ireland, even though no country on earth is officially called that.

(By order of FIFA, the national football team is called Republic of Ireland because for a number of years after Partition in 1922 , there were two football teams called Ireland, one on either side of the new border; now we have Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in football).

There were proposals that we could have articles called Ireland (island) and Ireland (state), but what we wound up with was Ireland for the island and Republic of Ireland for the state.

There is a curious and fucked up policy now (I forget the name of the policy, but it is in Help) that wikilinks to the article about the state are to be coded thus: [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. This idiocy drives me insane on three levels: Republic of Ireland is not the name of the country; it is inconsistent to pipe two names for one place into a wikilink like that; and every time I want to create a link to Ireland, I have to type out the whole damned thing, instead of simply [[Ireland]].

If you have a masochistic streak, you can find out where all the old discussions (fights) about this are, and read them. They will destroy your faith in humanity. I created my user box one day as a spontaneous cry of anguish at the absurdity and pure wrongness-in-fact of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. Imagine if United States editors had been forced to accept that wikilinks to the article about their country were coded like this: [[Republic of the United States of America|United States]].

I have no patience for this shit. It is a bitter pill to swallow – without being histrionic, it is a violation of reason and of self, and counter to the spirit of education of Wikipedia – to accept that the article about Ireland in the biggest encyclopaedia on earth is misnamed, and creates the false impression to all and sundry, including under-educated Irish people, that the official name of the country is "Republic of Ireland". — Spideog (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the kind of thing that makes people say "wikipedia is made up stuff". It's locating the US article at the States, or the UK one at Blighty. It reflects poorly on the project. The straight forward answer from the policies and guidelines is "use a disambiguator", but one sees how "(state)" might be bit confusing, what with stuff like the Irish Free State and all. Also, as I see it, Ireland the state is clearly the wp:primarytopic compared to the island, which should be Ireland (island). Why can't people accept Ireland as wp:primarytopic? he asks naively. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that Ireland article is not really about the island, but is wp:dabconcept; that's not entirely unreasonable. But that still leaves RoI. Skimming through WP:Ireland Collaboration, my impression is in one of literal entrenchment, the lines happen to be where they are just because they are there. I can understand your frustration. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this interesting: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#.22Republic_of_Ireland.22_de-capitalisation_in_running_text. Do you think it'd make a difference as to the perception of RoI as an official name? ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Castle sign small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We may not have much in common, but I think our heritage may, at least a bit on my paternal side. 🍀 The maternal side, not so much. 🍝 Anyway, your collaboration at Circe is very much appreciated. I have been working with SNAAAAKE!! for a while now, and he truly is an amazing writer and very dedicated to getting the articles right. He has the energy and desire, and he does listen to suggestions and constructive criticism, so again, thank you. ^Atsme 📣 📧 19:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Thank you, and I like Italians, too! (Assuming that's what your pasta-dish icon means.) I have enjoyed my times in Italy. As to SNAAAAKE!!, I appreciate his work on Circe; what provoked my intervention was simply that he unilaterally performed a merge in opposition to established consenus, even if the debate was limited in scope to a handful of contributors. The discussion should be broadened to more contributors. If that resulted in a merge, which I would oppose, then so be it. — Spideog (talk)

Yes, Italian. Understood about the merge. Happy editing! ^Atsme 📣 📧 20:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Spideog, I just asked an Adminstrator what might be the next move, given SNAAAAKE!!'s bluster and intransigence. He suggested a WP:RfC to unmerge the two, which would be a broadening of the discussion that you mention above. Are you up for initiating that? Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - can't we just sit tight and let him finish what he started? At least, let's see where it ends up? We have someone willing to do the research/writing/cleanup - and he's not doing anything that can't be undone - so why throw a wrench in his momentum? He has done some pretty amazing work with articles related to Arthurian legends, including Mordred, Morganna, Merlin (poem), etc. He has earned various editing accolades and I don't see how it's going to hurt anything to let him work. Please? ^Atsme 📣 📧 02:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about individuals, or even content, it's about the workability of Wikipedia. With so many contributing, there have to be guidelines for courteous co-operation. If an editor considers what he has to contribute is so valuable that procedures can be waived in his case, then the whole project has a problem. What is proposed is a discussion to see if other editors agree with SNAAAAKE's action, not the quality of what he writes. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is about collaboration and what is best for the project, the latter of which takes priority. It is not our job to police articles simply to make sure editors are following all the rules. Keep in mind WP:IAR and the not so bendable policy of WP:CIR. Call an RfC if you believe it's best for the project. ^Atsme 📣 📧 17:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your continued reversion of two different IP editors' (hopefully not sock puppets) edits of the Gemini 5 astronauts' names: please read WP:COMMONNAME carefully; it applies to article titles only, and does not follow wikilinks wherever they go. Back in the day, the astronauts were known by their more formal names rather than as what we recognize as the "common names" today. Nothing prohibits use of those names as references inside of other articles.

And using the pipe trick to synonymously link is perfectlly OK. No one is proposing moving the article titles. I am not either one of those two IP addresses, but I happen to agree with them. Please leave these edits alone. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dead astronauts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Astronauts who died in spaceflight-related incidents are already covered by List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents. Others are covered by List of astronauts by name.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Your assumption is good, but it was not like that in communist Czechoslovakia in the 1950s. Most of people with the bourgeois background were persecuted by the régime at that time. It was working class who ruled in my country and selected loyal individuals sometimes even enjoyed some selected advantages, not 'prosperous bourgeoisie'. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your edit of 12 January you added a Refimprove tag to this article. In your edit summary you wrote "The bulk of the article is unsupported by citations". Having created the original I keep an eye on this article and I am sure there is room for improvement. But there are currently 41 citations so I can't see how you arrived at your conclusion. That said, I'd be happy to source references for those parts of the article you see as deficient. So when time permits I'd be grateful if you could let me know what gaps you believe need to be filled. Thanks. Jim Bruce (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Dublin County Council polling scheme has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of townlands of County Louth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not easy to read, not necessary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Avishai11 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging all the lists of top singles in Ireland. Seems like you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know about dating maintenance tags? Just a simple "|date=June 2024" would do the trick for all of them, or give #visualeditor a try. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: The AnomieBOT takes care of dating the Unreferenced templates and it has probably already dated all of the ones I added today.

I don't like the Visual Editor. I played with it for a while many years ago and never went back.

It is good that you have added some citations to the articles I tagged as unreferenced but I am very concerned that adding just one citation creates another problem. Doing so moves the articles from the Unreferenced category to the Articles needing additional references category.

This obscures the real "crisis" in the articles, so to speak. It makes them seem like well-referenced articles which just need a bit of attention when in fact they have merely one citation, so almost all of each article in the series is actually completely unreferenced, a fact that removing the Unreferenced templates hides by implying false reassurance about articles with almost no visible reliability.

It would be better in my view to leave an article completely unreferenced to alert editors more interested in the subject matter than I am that these articles need a lot of work (time-consuming research, then adding citations for all music chart entries).

I won't be doing this because the subject matter doesn't interest me enough, because my available WikiTime is limited, and because editing using a mobile phone that is not working well (too many falls) makes this work difficult and slow until I replace the device.

There are more than 60 such articles recording charts for 52 weeks each, so that's 60 × 52 = 3,120 citations needed. Fixing that will require a great deal of work. That real crisis is rather hidden if all the articles containing just one citation are disguised by being in the Articles needing additional references category.

I don't mean to be negative, or critical of the work you've done, but I can't deny the concern it raises. Spideog (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stopping you from nominating these articles for deletion. In truth, I think it's quite likely that all these pages can be cited easily once someone gets their hands on the books that were used to source them in the first place. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: The articles are too useful to take the drastic step of deleting them. I viewed a couple of them to answer questions I had, which they answered, so deletion would destroy their usefulness. I don't accuse them of containing unreliable information, merely that they require verification.

I agree that these articles can be cited from relevant books (or other sources), as you say, but the research for 60+ years followed by writing up thousands of citations is certainly a very considerable project – such a comprehensive anthology of articles was not compiled overnight, and implementing the necessary repairs to so many articles will also demand considerable time. It calls for a charts enthusiast to become aware of the scale of the problem, one who would positively enjoy such a meaty project. (Or better yet, a swarm of eager enthusiasts.) Spideog (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello BrownHairedGirl. I have just discovered the giant and overwhelmingly lengthy and detailed narrative of your eviction from the Kingdom of Wikipedia."

I'm puzzled what happened in the case of BHG - she was a good friend on Wiki - any link to what happened? Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sarah777:

When I discovered that BrownHairedGirl had been banned, more than two months had already passed since the event. At that time I followed various links associated with the banning and found an extensive bog of detail, so much of it that I merely skimmed it to get the gist. So many editors piled in from multiple directions that it was like watching a pack of hyenas bringing down a giraffe. I was forced to bail out before I could even decide if such a prolific contributor even "deserved" something as harsh as banning.

As I wrote in my appreciation of her on her talk page, "I have not tried to read all of the vast quantity of legal-forensic argument pertaining to this incident (I value my mental health)" and added "As wonderful as the project is, it is also at times a lunatic asylum of disputation and rows cunningly designed to wreck anyone's delicate psychology – the Hell of Wikipedia." (I very dimly recall you were embroiled in time-consuming wrangling years ago over Northern Ireland or Irish nationalism – or something! – so I imagine you carry your own WikiScars.)

With so much more time having passed, my memory of events from that skimming has grown vague. This is compounded by my summer head cold which I've had for two weeks and which, by now, has ground me down, so my brain is even foggier than usual.

Having said that, one suggestion I have is to look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute, particularly the Remedies section, further down.

I cannot remember if that was the only dispute she was embroiled in at the time which led to her banning. There was a huge – overwhelming, really – amount of disputation by many editors, and it did my bleedin nut in.

Her latest talk page archive (Archive 077) provides further clues. Note in particular her posts Withdrawal from the SmallCat case, Semi-retired, and Over and out. Also, many other editors posted appreciations of BrownHairedGirl on that archive page before my belated remarks on her current talk page.

Finally, you could use this link to e-mail your thoughts to her (no-one knows if she still reads her talk page). Who knows if she might reply, or agree to chat on the phone, or by videochat, or to meet for a chinwag? I have no idea.

You and I have chatted very briefly in the past, but always before I changed my user ID. This is a longer reply than you expected, no doubt, but I hope it helps. Best wishes. Spideog (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spideog. What were you before you were a robin?! I have been only fleetingly engaged with Wiki for the past many years but was somewhat shocked that someone of the history and pedigree of BHG could be banned. As someone who was blocked/banned several times back in the heady days of nearly 20 years ago, I am very contemptuous of the "legal" system on Wiki. It has become even worse and more draconian than it was back in my time of trouble. I'll read the links you provide, thanks again. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]