Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Pmanderson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Warofdreams (talk | contribs) UK constituencies are now being moved to the (constituency) disambiguation |
||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
*'''Oppose'''. For the same reasons as above. Parenthesis must be used only for disambiguation. [[User:Švitrigaila|Švitrigaila]] 07:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. For the same reasons as above. Parenthesis must be used only for disambiguation. [[User:Švitrigaila|Švitrigaila]] 07:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''. This is probably my fault for setting up networks of (UK Parliament constituency) and (Dáil Éireann constituency) articles. Those people who objected directly to me favoured a single (constituency) article solution. I have gradually been adopting this by merging articles and adding information about the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland and devolved bodies. There is a complication that the project to do UK Parliament constituency articles favours a uniform naming policy. I am therefore leaving articles, about post 1922 constituencies in Northern Ireland, in the (UK Parliament constituency) format and where appropriaate providing a link to a (constituency) article for earlier incarnations of the seat. This is not a problem for the Republic of Ireland, where the current constituency articles used the (constituency) format before I got involved, which I was not arrogant enough to alter. Above all I do want a consensus so I do not have to keep on re-doing articles when a difference of opinion emerges. --[[User:Gary J|Gary J]] 09:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. This is probably my fault for setting up networks of (UK Parliament constituency) and (Dáil Éireann constituency) articles. Those people who objected directly to me favoured a single (constituency) article solution. I have gradually been adopting this by merging articles and adding information about the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland and devolved bodies. There is a complication that the project to do UK Parliament constituency articles favours a uniform naming policy. I am therefore leaving articles, about post 1922 constituencies in Northern Ireland, in the (UK Parliament constituency) format and where appropriaate providing a link to a (constituency) article for earlier incarnations of the seat. This is not a problem for the Republic of Ireland, where the current constituency articles used the (constituency) format before I got involved, which I was not arrogant enough to alter. Above all I do want a consensus so I do not have to keep on re-doing articles when a difference of opinion emerges. --[[User:Gary J|Gary J]] 09:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Comment''' - the consensus on the UK constituency project seems now to have changed, and articles have been moved to the simpler (constituency) disambiguation where there is no potential for confusion. This will also make it easier to provide merged articles on pre- and post-partition constituencies, should there be a consensus for this. I would at least like to see articles on constituencies created in 1918 merged. [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] ''[[User talk:Warofdreams|talk]]'' 17:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Question'''... Some of these article titles (at least for the list above) already ''have'' parenthetical names. I'm not clear on why claifying the parenthetical is a bad idea. I was just about to just do the moves for the requesting user when I decided to pop in here first. I'd be inclined to do them, and do them all, to keep them consistent, except that there seems to be consensus against that right now! I like consistency in main article names for parallel topics, and think redirects are fine for the simpler names. A redirect would be left behind... where there would be a dab needed, we'd want to set that up too... I don't buy the "simplest name trumps consistency" argument, the user gets redirected as long as the right redirects are set up. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Question'''... Some of these article titles (at least for the list above) already ''have'' parenthetical names. I'm not clear on why claifying the parenthetical is a bad idea. I was just about to just do the moves for the requesting user when I decided to pop in here first. I'd be inclined to do them, and do them all, to keep them consistent, except that there seems to be consensus against that right now! I like consistency in main article names for parallel topics, and think redirects are fine for the simpler names. A redirect would be left behind... where there would be a dab needed, we'd want to set that up too... I don't buy the "simplest name trumps consistency" argument, the user gets redirected as long as the right redirects are set up. '''<font color="green">[[User:Lar/Esperanza|+]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Emailuser/Lar|+]]</font>'''[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
**Where consistency is wanted, the long names are also perfectly good redirects. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
**Where consistency is wanted, the long names are also perfectly good redirects. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:55, 11 May 2006
Requested Moves
I have requested moves for the articles listed in in the table below. The purpose of the move is clarity and consistency.
They are all constituencies for elections to Dáil Éireann (the Irish parliament), and I am tryin to convert their names across to the format "xxx (Dáil Éireann constituency)". AS you will see from the Category:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland, about half are already done, and all of the defunct constituencies in Category:Parliamentary (Dáil Éireann) constituencies in Ireland (historic) had been done before I started work.
In each case, the move is blocked by a redirect at the place I want to move the article to, which is why I need an admin's help. I hope the table is self-explanatory. (BTW, note the accents in the names: it's important that those are retained).
A term such as "Carlow-Kilkenny" could easily be used to refer to any number of things spanning the two counties, and the name gives little clue as to the content of the article, except to those who already know.
Even names such as "Clare (constituency)" are less than informative, because they could refer to the former UK Parliament constituencies in Ireland (from 1901-1922). Those constituencies have all been named in the format "xxx (UK Parliament constituency)" (see e.g. Category:Historic parliamentary constituencies in Ireland).
--BrownHairedGirl 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Requested move votes
- Oppose We shouldn't add gratuitous parenthetical context to titles. We should only add the parenthetical contexts where there's a namespace conflict. --Davidstrauss 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Article titles just need to be unique, nothing more.
- Like David said, no need to highlight context, eg we use Bertie Ahern but not Bertie Ahern (Irish Taoiseach).
- Keep as simple as possible for link use eg it's easier to link to Carlow-Kilkenny than to Carlow-Kilkenny (Dáil Eireann constituency). Less familiar users will be more likely to get the link right.
- If there is no other use for a title, then use it, eg currently no other use for Carlow-Kilkenny, Meath East etc
- They should be as near as as possible to what a user trying to direct-link would use, eg a user looking for the Clare constituency would probably type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare, and seeing the disambig page would think: Clare, the constituency.
- If multiple candidates for a title exist, eg the current Clare constituency vs the old UK Clare constituency, we use disambig. pages. There is then sometimes debate about what article title should be used for each. see Talk:The Nation#Article title for a recent example. Generally, the most common usage inherits the shared title, and the others have extended titles to be unique. Thus Clare (constituency) for the current one, and Clare (UK Parliament constituency) for the historic one.
- Up to now the unwritten naming convention for Irish constituencies is to use the name, eg Kerry South, and if that is ambiguous, add (constituency). Making them all consistent 'xxx (Dáil Eireann Constituency) loses simplicity without adding any great value.
- Any title with a Fada (Gaelic accent), such as Dáil is a pain to use - slower to type - and should be avoided if possible.
- From Wikipedia:Naming Conventions
- Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature
- --Rye1967 20:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose In addition, article names should fit into running text where feasible. Septentrionalis 05:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. In many cases, constituencies of the same name existed before 1918. Take Galway East for example, there is another page named East Galway (UK Parliament constituency). I think the focus should be on the constituency, not the parliament representatives attended, i.e. there should only be one article dealing with Galway East before and after 1918.--Damac 06:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. For the same reasons as above. Parenthesis must be used only for disambiguation. Švitrigaila 07:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is probably my fault for setting up networks of (UK Parliament constituency) and (Dáil Éireann constituency) articles. Those people who objected directly to me favoured a single (constituency) article solution. I have gradually been adopting this by merging articles and adding information about the pre-1801 Parliament of Ireland and devolved bodies. There is a complication that the project to do UK Parliament constituency articles favours a uniform naming policy. I am therefore leaving articles, about post 1922 constituencies in Northern Ireland, in the (UK Parliament constituency) format and where appropriaate providing a link to a (constituency) article for earlier incarnations of the seat. This is not a problem for the Republic of Ireland, where the current constituency articles used the (constituency) format before I got involved, which I was not arrogant enough to alter. Above all I do want a consensus so I do not have to keep on re-doing articles when a difference of opinion emerges. --Gary J 09:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - the consensus on the UK constituency project seems now to have changed, and articles have been moved to the simpler (constituency) disambiguation where there is no potential for confusion. This will also make it easier to provide merged articles on pre- and post-partition constituencies, should there be a consensus for this. I would at least like to see articles on constituencies created in 1918 merged. Warofdreams talk 17:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Question... Some of these article titles (at least for the list above) already have parenthetical names. I'm not clear on why claifying the parenthetical is a bad idea. I was just about to just do the moves for the requesting user when I decided to pop in here first. I'd be inclined to do them, and do them all, to keep them consistent, except that there seems to be consensus against that right now! I like consistency in main article names for parallel topics, and think redirects are fine for the simpler names. A redirect would be left behind... where there would be a dab needed, we'd want to set that up too... I don't buy the "simplest name trumps consistency" argument, the user gets redirected as long as the right redirects are set up. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where consistency is wanted, the long names are also perfectly good redirects. Septentrionalis 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as the propser of these moves, I find myself very surprised by the degree of opposition here -- but that's why we have talk pages, to discuss it all! Anyway, I want to respond to the points raised to try to change your minds, but it's going to be quite a lengthy reply, so I hope you'll bear with me until later tonight or maybe tomorrow morning. --BrownHairedGirl 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)