Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 22

I've proposed a change to the naming convention for places in County Dublin at Talk:Adamstown, Dublin, which I think is in line with MOS:IRISHCOUNTIES. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Moving the conversation to this general discussion area. In general, the style guide at MOS:IRISHCOUNTIES reads "Use the full county name (i.e., County X) when referring to counties, rather than abbreviating to the short name (i.e., X)". However, in the case of most settlements in Dublin, the articles are titled Y, Dublin, rather than Y, County Dublin. I posited that this makes sense for those in the city itself, but beyond that, County Dublin should be in the article title. A similar distinction is found in Douglas, Cork vs Mallow, County Cork. I do think it is helpful for article titles to make this distinction. As there was not a clear consensus for a proposal based on the administrative city, I've included it among three proposals for discussion.

• Administrative divide: as initially proposed. Advantage: follows a legal distinction. Disadvantage: may not reflect changing population development and the fact that cities in practice spread beyond that governed by a city council.
• Population divide: places outside the jurisdiction of the city council but part of urban base of the city should retain the Y, Dublin format, whereas somewhere further out should be retitled, e.g., Naul, County Dublin for the Naul. This has an objective reference in the CSO map of urban areas.
• Postcode divide: places within the Dublin postcode system should retain the Y, Dublin format, whereas places with County Dublin in their postal address, see e.g., Blackrock should be moved to Blackrock, County Dublin. This has the advantage of matching WP:COMMONNAME.

I'm tagging ww2censor, Bastun, Sarah777, Amakuru and Financefactz as participants in the earlier discussion. FWIW, I might now be more inclined towards the postcode divide, as it does reflect common usage. Although County Dublin is not an administrative entity, it is used officially in addresses, so remains a geographic term. It is also very occasionally used administratively, such as the Dublin County Returning Officer, so it's non-existence can be over-stated. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Support: That sounds like a reasonable compromise. It also supports common usage to an extent - as mentioned, most people would say "Blackrock, County Dublin" and "Sandyford, Dublin 18" or "Sandyford in Dublin". Common usage is largely based on the pre-eircode address system. Think "Donnybrook, Dublin 4". Having said that I prefer the system as it is - but I agree that "Naul, Dublin" is out of synch with common usage and could be misleading - though I remain unconvinced that Admastown is any problem at all as it contiguous part of the built-up area. Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Addendum - I suppose one risk with the "dual system" is that marginal cases, suburbs that were separate but are recently contiguous such as Newcastle, Dublin or Rathcoole, Dublin could become controversial. We might need to agree on a list of what's in and what's out. Sarah777 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Support: (Population/Geographic divide) or similar. Administrative council areas of Fingal etc. do not have a firm or permanent boundary and aren't used in addresses or popular naming convention. The only naming convention that we can say with a degree of certainty will not be changed or altered and is in common usage is county names. The borders of the city will always be up for debate with areas just outside/inside the city, that is the only downside which I cans see. Clontarf, Dublin. I think the vast majority of people wouldn't regard Adamstown as being part of the city proper. Financefactz (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, define "City proper"? Inside the canals? The Dublin City Council area? I'd go for contiguous built-up areas - and that would absolutely include Adamstown! Sarah777 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Adamstown is part of the contiguous built-up area of Dublin. It is not part of the Dublin postcode system, having Co. Dublin in its addresses. Although the former would suggest that Adamstown should be named Adamstown, Dublin, I'd be inclined to think that on the common name principle, Adamstown, County Dublin is a more objective choice. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere has a firm or permanent boundary! Dublin Corporation was abolished and replaced with Dublin City Council. County Dublin was abolished as an administrative area and was replaced with Fingal, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and the (poorly named, imho) 'South Dublin County Council' administrative area. Swords, Dublin - the county town of Fingal, remember! - is described as Swords in County Dublin, the county town of the local government area of Fingal, is a large suburban town on the east coast of Ireland, situated ten kilometres[10] north of Dublin city centre - which is just clumsy and confusing! If anything, that should be at Swords, Fingal! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Except that Swords, County Dublin is a common name based on postal addresses. County Dublin continues to have official recognition as a placename, as did County Tipperary even before its 2014 merger. Settlements shouldn’t be considered only in their administrative function when being named for article title purposes. (I agree on the name of South Dublin; it was Dublin–Belgard until 1991, but surely they could have found some better name!). Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Very South-East Meath? ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Support: (Population/Geographic divide) or similar - I think it's about the contiguous urban area. It's definitely not about the Dublin City Council area, which has hold only lopsided bits of the city for a long time. And the old conventions of "between the canals" (maybe still valid for "inner city") or between "Tolka and Dodder" are long-superseded too - there is no doubt that the city now includes Tallaght, Malahide and Dun Laoghaire (and Dalkey and Killiney) as direct suburbs, whatever their pasts. It seems clear for now that it does not include Swords, and absolutely not the villages (even with suburban housing) and small towns of the outer county (Newcastle, Lusk, Rush, Skerries, Naul, Balbriggan, etc.). Which leaves the "western corridor" - to Lucan, Adamstown and Leixlip - this is harder. My own instinct is that these are not yet "city" but the connection is growing. A timely discussion, thanks Iveagh Gardens... and apologies for joining late, I have been off sick for 3.5 weeks, longest absence in 5+ years.SeoR (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: to be clear, I absolutely believe that County Dublin has a place still, including in this matter. But I also believe that the old "Blackrock, County Dublin" (covering a vast area, purely on the basis of how P&T managed addresses) is long over, and that we do need to look to the now-large continuous city area (most of the lands girdled by the M50, and some of what lies beyond, including most of Greater Tallaght, Greater Blanchardstown and Greater Clondalkin.SeoR (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

If that is the divide we’re going for, which can be assessed according to the CSO maps, Brittas is correctly titled as Brittas, County Dublin, but Monkstown, County Dublin would be moved to Monkstown, Dublin. – Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

We're making progress - but I must remain a bit Bolshie about Adamstown. Twenty plus years ago it was a little known rural townland just outside the edge of the the city. It now sits within the contiguous built-up area. It wasn't even know back when we had Blackrock, County Dublin or Donnybrook, Dublin 4. So no tradition to offend!

As for Monkstown, Dublin and Brittas, County Dublin - agree they are the best solutions.

Sarah777 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Eyes would be welcome on Ó Comáin, in the interests of ensuring the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR are adhered to. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Greetings,

It appears while attempting to close an RM request, I accidentally moved the entire Wikiproject talk page. This was obviously not intentional and seems to have been the result of the script thinking that this was an article talk page that required moving. I was able to revert the move and am now in process of cleaning up. If I missed anything, feel free to tag it or let me know. Apologies!

Cheers, Garsh (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content by improving articles for your country or any other, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for your project, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I notice the list of good articles doesn't have any Irish representation among the heads of state and government. Of the articles on taoisigh or presidents of Ireland, are there any we think could be good candidates that we could focus on to improve style and referencing on to achieve that status? Among historical figures, I spot Erskine Childers, but do any of the articles on Wolfe Tone, Daniel O'Connell, Edward Carson, Patrick Pearse or James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon, to pick examples at random, have short-term potential for GA status? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:People on Irish postage stamps has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Declangi (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Would appreciate the input of people here on how best to approach whether or not to include the ordinal number (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) on articles concerning the current and previous holders of the office of the President.

Surtsicna is making the case that it should not be included, because it isn't in common usage in the way that it is in the US - ie, as in this edit, where they contend that 'Nobody in Ireland refers to her as "the 8th" in the way Trump is called "the 47th" in the US.' I don't disagree with that statement at all, but personally I don't agree with the exclusion of the ordinals as I do think it's useful information. This is in response to an edit made by Lucky9808 in which they point out that the presidents are numbered on the official website of the president (president.ie), and that it is therefore reasonable to include the number.

In previous edits (1, 2, 3), they have stated that 'This is simply not done in Ireland as it is in the US. People refer to the presidents by their names, not as "the Xth president"', that 'Nobody in Ireland knows or cares whether she was the seventh or the eighth. It's not the priority.', and that 'In Ireland it does not matter at all whether Higgins was the ninth or the eighth president.' I find the tone of this all rather insistent about information that, while not in common use as substitute for the name of the president, is also not *not* being used to describe them.

In the interests of balance, I will also point out that the stating the order isn't consistent on the website - it's given on the website on the pages for the first, second, fourth, seventh, eighth, and ninth, but not the third, fifth, or sixth.

I'm asking if we can form a consensus here about the inclusion or exclusion of these numbers so we can but the editing back and forth to bed. Personally I think that we ought to include them. Xx78900 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No - Users have correctly pointed out that ordinal numbers are not in common usage in Ireland for the offices such as President or Taoiseach, and major reliable secondary sources such as Irish newspaper reflect that. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No - Per the quoted users, it's just not a thing. Sure, ordinals may be used very occasionally, but they're certainly not in common use in Ireland. I'd have no objection to a passing mention in the body of the article - "X was elected as Ireland's Yth president on some date..." where it's natural, but I'd be against changing every article to include it in the lede, or adding it to infoboxes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No - per above, and per Bastun. It's just not done in Ireland. The only exception really is when Douglas Hyde is referred to as the first President of Ireland as that was a fundamental event in the formation of the nation - Alison ^talk 18:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am the editor mentioned above. Like others so far, I am not opposed to saying "Higgins is the ninth person to hold the office" or something like that where it's relevant and natural; but the lead is meant for essential information and this is, to say the least, not essential. I am particularly opposed to lead sentences such as "Higgins has been the ninth president of Ireland since 2011" because they may easily mislead: Ireland has not had 9 presidents since 2011. Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Qualified "No". With a caveat on following the sources/guidelines. And acknowledging the exceptions that prove the rule. In terms of:

• infobox parameters, and as others have indicated, we likely should follow Template:Infobox officeholder guidelines on the "|order=" parameter. And only populate that field in cases where there's "well-established use of such numbering in reliable sources".
• body text, I think we should also follow the sources. And only focus on numbers/ordering when multiple sources do. (And, just to be clear and as already noted in my follow-up to this rv pattern, we should not apply infobox guidelines to body text. And where, for example, Seán T. Ó Ceallagh is repeatedly described in reliable sources as the "second President of Ireland", we can reasonably refer to him as such in the body. And not use infobox parameter guidelines [or "if the lead here is changed you have to change everything" style arguments] as a rationale for changes/reverts to body text.)
• a "hard and fast rule", I agree with the other inputs above that while (to an Irish ear) it sounds "artificial" to refer to Hillery as the "6th president" (rather than "president from 1976 to 1990"), that doesn't mean that Hyde shouldn't be referred to as the "1st president". In short: just because we don't describe Higgins as the 9th president, it doesn't automatically follow that we shouldn't refer to Hyde as the first. Or Ó Ceallaigh as the 2nd. At least in the body....

My 2x cents anyway. Guliolopez (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Pretty clear consensus here against the generalised inclusion. Thanks to all for your input! Xx78900 (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Store Bar shooting#Requested move 29 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

A discussion on multiple proposed mergers is ongoing at Outline of Belarus that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Necessary to add here because, in addition, the Article Alert doesn't update the discussion page target. Dege31 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Why we would have a discussion on Ireland-related page moves at the talk page of an article on Belarus is left as an exercise for the reader? Weird too that an editor with less than 4,000 edits can become a mentor... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a proposed merge discussion at Talk:Sport in Galway#Proposed merge June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Guliolopez (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

No thoughts on this? No concern that Galway's "sport" section is (now) entirely empty? And the only one to be so? Guliolopez (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Robert Shaw (actor)#Requested move 20 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Michael McCarthy (Gaelic footballer)#Requested move 2 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I recently declined Draft:R524 road (Ireland) on basic GNG, and got the normal but others exist query. I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R160 road (Ireland) that was strongly delete/listify but was closed procedurally pending a discussion which I've failed to find. Does anyone know if that discussion happened, where and the outcome? If not it would appear that the AfD need a reboot. I asked at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways already with no indication so far the discussion happened. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I raised this at Talk:Catherine Connolly, but perhaps this is a wider WP:IMOS point. I had preferred the term Irish speaker as clearer for an international readership than Gaeilgeoir, but is the latter fine as standard within pages tagged with template:Use Hiberno-English? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "... is a gaeilgeoir (Irish language speaker)..." could be used? I've found similar structures on the following pages, Fáinne, Éamon de Valera, Aoife Scott.

I do think leaving it as "gaeilgeoir" is fine for most pages tagged with Template:Use Hiberno-English, but I think a clarification on pages likely to receive much international attention is reasonable. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much "Gaeilgeoir" aligns with Hiberno-English, and in line with general policy, I think "Irish speaker" is probably more appropriate on most articles. It is worth noting that "Gaeilgeoir" is used in subtly different ways, and such subtleties will be missed by most non-Irish, and some Irish, readers. As a backup option, I would be happy to endorse the bracketed approach. SeoR (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The common term in English is Irish speaker or Irish language speaker. If there is a common English term we should use that rather than a term in a non-English language that isn't commonly understood by native English speakers. At the end of the day this is the English language Wikipedia. We don't expect other article subjects that speak other languages to have that language in that tongue other than English, no reason Irish should be any different. Canterbury Tail talk 21:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi All, I’m a new editor working on the Barbara Gogan article—she was the lead of The Passions. The article is currently under deletion discussion (AfD), and I’m hoping to improve it with reliable sources and better coverage. If anyone has advice on how to strengthen the article or knows strong sources I could use, I would really appreciate it. This has been a fun project so far, and I’m learning a lot! Thanks so much for any guidance or any assistance with improvements, if you are so inclined. Best, Adrian Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Today, I’ve compiled additional (possible) sources on post-punk and electronic musician Barbara Gogan. Feedback or assistance verifying or expanding the content by any noninvolved editors would be very welcome. I aim to expand and improve this AfD article. Thank you for any guidance or assistance you can provide!

— Adrian

Newly identified possible key sources:

• Women Make Noise: Girl Bands from Motown to the Modern, Julia Downes et al., 2015
• Real Life Rock: The Complete Top Ten Columns, 1986–2014, Greil Marcus, 2015, p. 504
• Post Punk Diary: 1980–1982, George Gimarc, 1997, p. 36
• Season of the Witch: The Book of Goth, Cathi Unsworth, 2024
• The England’s Dreaming Tapes, Jon Savage, 2010, p. 736

Newly identified possible additional sources for reference:

• New Women in Rock, Liz Thomson, 1982, p. 46
• Signed, Sealed, and Delivered: True Life Stories of Women in Pop, Sue Steward & Sheryl Garratt, 1984
• The Trouser Press Record Guide, Ira Robbins, 1991, p. 492
• Billboard, 4 Oct 1997, p. 30
• The Virgin Encyclopedia of 80s Music, Colin Larkin, 2003, p. 377
• The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Colin Larkin, 1992 & 1995
• Complete UK Hit Albums 1956–2005, Graham Betts, 2005, p. 309
• Collins Complete UK Hit Singles 1952–2004, Graham Betts, 2004, p. 586
• The Peel Sessions, Ken Garner, 2010
• BBC Music Magazine, Vol. 6, 1998, p. 62
• The Wire, Vols. 173–178, 1998, p. 33
• The Nation, Vol. 238, 1984, p. 697
• Enciclopedia rock anni ’80, Riccardo Bertoncelli, 1989, p. 529
• The Literature of Rock II, 1979–1983, Frank W. Hoffmann, B. Lee Cooper & Lee Ann Hoffmann, 1986
• The Great British Mistake: Post Punk Fanzines: 1979–84, Tom Vague, 2017

Adrian.stewart.music (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Celtic Knot is back! Don’t miss the Celtic Knot Online Celebration Day 2025, happening Tuesday, 23rd September, 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm (BST/IST).

Hosted by Wikimedia UK and Wikimedia Community Ireland, this online gathering brings together contributors, advocates, and community members working with Celtic and other minority and minoritised languages.

What to expect:

• Engaging presentations and lightning talks
• Community Updates
• Q&A session
• Space to reconnect, share updates, and spark new collaborations

With just one week to go, make sure you’ve secured your spot! Register now to join us on Zoom here. See the programme here Cailínréalta (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Fionn_McLaughlin. No real opinion on the underlying dispute, only that proper protocol is followed. I'm not sure what the protocol here is for dealing with describing the nationality of ethnic Irish people from Northern Ireland in the opening sentence of their articles. Input from people experienced with the issue would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see the RM discussion here on the presidential candidate/public servant/air corps officer/Gaelic football team manager/Gaelic football player. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

This unsourced BLP has been proposed for deletion. It is urgent that reliable sources be added to this stub. Bearian (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The main issue there seems to be that someone hijacked that article a few years ago. Certainly all the refs and backlinks presume that the subject is the Bermudian swimmer. And not an Irish one. I've reverted those weird/hijacking changes. And restored (and added) some refs. The title could well be eligible for deletion (on notability grounds). But the actual/intended subject appears to have limited relevance to WikiProject Ireland.... Guliolopez (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Faction fighting#Requested move 2 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Category:Irish sports commentators for a discussion that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Niall Garve O'Donnell § Requested move 27 September 2025. Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Finnegans Wake has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

More input in this category discussion would be very welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

An editor has proposed changing the guideline status of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms. Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Ireland Category Norms#RFC on moving or removing this guideline. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion regarding the redirect "Regions of Ireland" which may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a quick note that this article is currently up for peer review here if anyone is interested. GRMA! Will there ever be a rainbow? (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hindu–German Conspiracy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Andrea Corr has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Context is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish heads of government since 1919 (2nd nomination) and Talk:List of Irish heads of government#Split proposal. Article was split after only 48 hours of discussion and no {{split}} notice, in an end-run around the failed AfD. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 12:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Barry Cogan (footballer) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a new-ish wikipedia editor. Long time listener, first time caller. What's good.

I'm looking for some spare pairs of eyes on the page for the Douglas Hyde Gallery, I'd like to try up the standard of it, since it seems to have been languishing for a bit. I'm having a look at it myself, but I'm not making any grand sweeping changes to it yet, especially because I think it needs some more fundamental structural changes in how it's laid out generally. If anyone has some good examples on how a page for a gallery like this is laid out, or if there's a style guide for these kind of arts organisations, please share them, I'll have a go at rewriting it in a more top to bottom way soon™.

For the moment, I've added some sources some of the missing citations on the talk page, and marked it that it needs updating. I reckon it would be a good thing to have updated to a better standard soon considering the gallery's involvement with the 2026 Irish submission to the Venice Bienalle. (You can even see someone representing the gallery making their own wikipedia account trying to ask for help updating it, ah bless.) But seriously I think it needs and deserves a fair bit of work, and I'd love some help with it!

Also: I briefly mention it on that talk page, but would making a disambiguation page for Douglas Hyde more generally would make sense over just adding a hatnote on the gallery's page pointing to the first Irish president, considering that page has a hatnote leading to ANOTHER Douglas Hyde? WabbitOnline (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I've nominated David O'Hanlon, an article about a priest who criticised President Mary Robinson's attire when she visited the pope, for deletion. the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David O'Hanlon. Scolaire (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Prehistoric Ireland be returned to this, its long-standing title, after an undiscussed move to Prehistory of Ireland. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Well, the move has been self-reverted, but it might be good, now the question has been raised, to collect comments there on the preferred title between "Prehistoric Ireland" and "Prehistory of Ireland". I don't myself see a vast need for consistency between such articles, but some evidently do. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated House of Plantagenet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I was copyediting the article Carina (yacht), about a boat that sank off Howth Head in 1944, and started looking into the sources. Of the few sources that I was able to verify, none mention a yacht Carina - many seem to discuss another boat Cymric (schooner). Most sources are 1940s newspaper articles without links, of which I can find none online; Googling comes up with only one hit for searches like "Carina Dublin 1944", https://skerriessailingclub.com/about-us/history-of-skerries-sailing-club (not sure how reliable). If anyone has a knack for finding or verifying pre-internet sources (e.g. newspaper archives), I'd appreciate if you'd take a look here. Pinging the author @Byrniman who doesn't seem to be active. -Consigned (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Consigned. I had a quick look, and I've found some of the Irish Independent sources mentioned.

Echo of Dublin Bay tragedy

Hope abandoned for yachtsmen

Skerries Club's Progress

I don't think Newspapers.com has any of the other required sources, but here's what I could find. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Consigned (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Dál Riata has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Lurgan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The move I made in April 2023 of Independent politicians in Ireland to Independent politician (Ireland) is under review, where Qwerty123M argues that the earlier title ought to have been retained in keeping with the precedent of Independent politicians in Australia. I'm happy to concede that I could have flagged my proposal more before moving the article, though also think the choice of article title can now be considered in its own right. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Boy, that guy has issues! Scolaire (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't want to cause stress on anyone's part. Please ask me questions about my behaviour instead of only calling it out, calling out bad behaviour only makes me feel worse.

My problem is that I'm confused — and I think other readers would be confused — why the disputed article has the title "Independent politician (Ireland)" instead of the other format of "Independent politicians in Australia". WP:TITLECON tells us that we should not use differing titles for similar articles without good reason, I haven't seen that good reason yet. My other problem is that I don't think @Iveagh Gardens respected the spirit of consensus-building effectively, because they could have relisted the previous uncontested move discussion or posted it on a WikiProject but they closed it while being involved which is a conflict of interest.

I acknowledge I could have engaged in discussion to gain consensus better but I doubted that I knew what the next steps needed to be. I'm sorry for being rude on @Iveagh Gardens' talk page because I know that engaging in bad faith like that is no way to gain consensus on anything, I think I was just stuck in the heat of the moment because I thought that was such a strange article title and I was very new to the move review process which I don't think I can ever appreciate, that may be one aspect Wikipedia needs reform in, it's too clunky as it currently is and only serves to heap pressure on involved editors. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

In 2019, I created a page initially titled Irish independent politician. Just after its publication, Spleodrach renamed it as Independent politicians in Ireland. In 2023, I proposed moving the page to its current title of Independent politician (Ireland). With no discussion ensuing, I enclosed it after a week, not as such on the basis of consensus, but that there was no comment.

Qwerty123M has objected to the 2023 page move as not following correct procedures, citing an article which predated this one, being Independent politicians in Australia with a different format, and referencing a principle at WP:TITLECON that article titles on similar topics should not differ without good reason. I'm not sure a single other article is sufficient to establish a naming convention, and given the topic, perhaps it is reasonable for them to vary by jurisdiction. On the other hand, Independent politicians in Ireland is more of a natural disambiguation.

Any thoughts? I maintain my 2023 observation that the parenthetical format has practical advantages, i.e., we're much more likely to refer to the "Independent politician Verona Murphy" than to be discoursing about Independent politicians in Ireland. Except, of course, on that page itself. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iveagh Gardens:, I have no strong opinion on which option is better. I'm happy with either. Spleodrach (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iveagh Gardens,

I'm sorry for causing stress. I just want this decision to be as easy as possible and maybe a move review is not as effective as I thought, or maybe it's too effective but also gets in people's way and brings out bad feelings.

I have proposed "Independent politicians in Australia" be moved to "Independent politician (Australia)" to resolve this dispute.

Kind regards, Qwerty123M (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Independent politician (Ireland) be moved to Independent politicians in Ireland, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus at WT:TITLE (permalink) that the disambiguation in the titles of constituency articles should be dropped unless needed. The discussion originated with UK constituencies, but would also apply to Dáil constituencies. This would result in the following article titles:

Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Iveagh Gardens:, I see editors are moving the Westminster ones, are the Dáil ones going to move as well? Spleodrach (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, as I had no involvement in the decision, I noticed it only after the fact, and that some of the Irish UK constituencies had moved. So it might fall to us on WP:IE, if we want to get them in line with the new naming convention. If so, I would suggest the following order: 1. Move articles to new locations. 2. Edit templates containing links to old article names. 3. Use AWB to update links. There are quite a lot of these, some of which will appear multiple times within a single article, and some linked next to links to articles that will not be moving, so the broader but targetted sweep of AWB should be helpful. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Spleodrach, the reason I’d suggested moving them all first before editing incoming links is that we could harness the power of AutoWikiBrowser to tackle the incoming links for multiple articles together, especially useful for catching articles with more than one such page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Iveagh Gardens I don't use AutoWikiBrowser, no plans to start using it either. Spleodrach (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Linfield F.C. has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 01:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Montpelier Hill has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm in Cork and don't go to Dublin often, but requesting that if anybody is in the National Museum on Kildare Street in the next while, I would love a picture of the small Breac Maodhóg shrine - right now our article is relying on 19th-century drawings by Margaret Stokes. It's very small and easily missed, but on permanent display in one of the first-floor medieval galleries (ask for the power gallery), just off the long Viking room. There are few images on Google, and only one that is free [pictured]. I would be especially thrilled to have close-ups of the weird bearded figures at the bottom of the front face. Ceoil (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tristan and Iseult#Requested move 12 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Overlapping somewhat with the recent discussion on how to name places that are outside the Dublin City Council area (but suburbs of or to the city), a relatively new editor has made a series of edits to several Dublin-related articles. Removing mention of the city (and in some cases the country) from the leads of a number of articles.

Each supported with a similar edit summary:

• "It (Knocklyon) is not a suburb of Dublin"
• "It (Dundrum) is not a suburb of Dublin"
• "It (Tallaght) cannot be a suburb (..as..) Tallaght is part South Dublin County Council"
• "It (Rathfarnham) is not a suburb of Dublin" (or, seemingly, in Ireland)

Whatever about clarifying (if not already clear) that a suburban town/village/whatever is not within the area of Dublin City Council, is it an improvement to removing mention of the city (entirely)? Does removing this context improve the reader's understanding of the topic? Personally, and without getting into semantics about whether an area is a "suburb of" or a "suburb to" the city, I don't see that these changes are improvements. Overall.

The changes have come thick and fast. And have been hard to keep track of. And include things like this (where key context is removed without justification or rationale - and Dublin's suburbs are disconnected from anything). For now, if interested, I've opened a thread at Talk:Rathfarnham#"It_is_not_a_suburb_of_Dublin"?_Really?. Guliolopez (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for highlighting. FWIW, while I have added some refs, updated the text to match those refs, moved the title (to reflect what the text/refs state), and attempted to de-orphan the title, I'm not entirely convinced that WP:SIGCOV is met. (Sports administrators, including club chairs and FAI presidents, are not automatically notable; And three obits [one from an INM regional outlet] may not fully support independent notability). Guliolopez (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. A formal RfC has been opened at WikiProject Canada regarding the inclusion of Indigenous place names in article leads. The proposal explicitly cites the dual-naming and Indigenous naming precedents established in New Zealand, Ireland, and Wales. As your project has successfully navigated the balance between English common names and Indigenous/local language names, your perspective on how this functions in practice would be valuable to the Canadian discussion. Discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada#RfC: Inclusion of significant Indigenous names in lead sentences (WP:CANSTYLE) Poketama (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The article John Joseph Collins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced WP:BLP. In ordinary times, not a big problem, but nowadays, this is a legal risk.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:St. Breckan's, Lisdoonvarna GAA#Requested move 10 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 05:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Dalton Philips article. DrThneed (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Nadim Sadek article. DrThneed (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Genealogical Office#Requested move 9 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 21:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles about how to style members of the Teachta Dála. Jon698 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, the question is whether in biographical articles we should write "Tony Gregory was a Teachta Dála (TD)" or "Tony Gregory was a TD". Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This may just be a pet peeve of mine, but there is inconsistency across the project on this. Now that the writs for the upcoming by-elections have been issued, I'm noticing it again in the introductions on the relevant pages: "the resignation of Fine Gael Teachta Dála (TD) Paschal Donohoe", "to fill the vacancy left by the election of independent Teachta Dála (TD) Catherine Connolly as president of Ireland". Nowhere else in English language prose would I see the term Teachta Dála being used in this way. In the discussion on the manual of style page, I referenced a search on the DIB site, which gave "Teachta Dála" only in its list of abbreviations, not anywhere in its prose articles. It's reasonable to take guidance from the most authoritative work in Irish biography. The value of links is that we can use the more natural form, "the resignation of Fine Gael TD Paschal Donohoe".

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lord Mountbatten#Requested move 10 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 22:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Socialist Party (Ireland)—has been proposed for merging with Solidarity (Ireland). If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Editor Finestat has boldly removed Category:Irish rebels from approximately 50 articles, replacing the entry with Category:Irish revolutionaries, and, in the process, emptying the former. No discussions took place, but looking at the first several such changes, it's clear it's a completely incorrect categorisation. Frank Byrne (Irish nationalist) did not take part in a revolution. Nor did John Casey (Australian convict). Nor Anthony Daly (Whiteboy). Nor did pirate queen Gráinne Maol. It's possible some of these entries may have been "revolutionaries" as the term is commonly understood, but the majority clearly weren't. I have reverted a handful of these changes manually, and I am going to mass revert the remainder, now, using the rollback feature, in the interests of efficiency. This talk page entry will serve as the edit summary. Finestat, if you are going to do something like this, please, get consensus first! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Whatever about some of the changes, the Granuaile change seems particularly inexplicable (as, while multiple sources refer to her as a "rebel", I am unaware of any which use the term "revolutionary". Which seems, at best, a relatively modern term). A majority of sources (both historical and academic) would also appear to describe Red Hugh O'Donnell as "rebel" rather than "revolutionary". While consistency may seem like a laudable goal, I don't think this is a "one size fits all" type scenario. And categorisation would ideally reflect the article text and the sources (per WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF). And, consistency notwithstanding, we likely shouldn't retroactively apply modern terms to historical topics/subjects. ("Rebel" is a term with longstanding use in respect of people/topics. Whether in relation to various Irish rebellions or Irish rebel songs or otherwise. I'm not sure we should be removing the term/category entirely. Certainly not when the sources support its use - and don't support other terms...) Guliolopez (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Completely wrong, & needs reversing. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Writing in general about categories:

Categories are not visible on mobile, and as nearly 2/3 readers are on mobile, most readers never see the categories of an article.

Categories are at the bottom of an article, after the main content, references, other sources, see also and templates, and so are less likely to be clicked than other links in an article.

As a consequence, categories are not viewed very often. Here is the 90-day view stats for Category:Irish rebels and Category:Irish revolutionaries which shows very low viewership.

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Category:Irish_rebels%7CCategory:Irish_revolutionaries

It is likely that a good few categories are rarely if ever visited. Something that Wikipedians should consider before spending their time adding or worrying about them.

Writing in specific about Irish rebels, Irish revolutionaries and Irish guerrillas.

Category:Irish guerrillas is easy to get rid of, it only has four articles of United Irishmen. Checking several other United Irishmen, none of them appear in Rebels or Revolutionaries. Several of them appear in Category:Irish soldiers which I would expect should only include people who were/are members of an official army. And speaking of which, why are medieval Irish kings Cathal Crobhdearg Ua Conchobair and Conchobar Maenmaige Ua Conchobair included in Irish Soldiers?

I get the distinction in meaning between rebels and revolutionaries and maybe early modern people like [[Red Hugh O'Donnell] are Rebels, but there is inconsistency in the use of these two categories.

Why then is Thomas FitzGerald, 10th Earl of Kildare included in the Revolutionaries category and not Rebels?

Why is Category:Executed participants in the Easter Rising in Rebels, but only two of the executed are in Rebels, eleven others are only in Revolutionaries, and remainder in neither?

Why is the article Irish National Invincibles in Revolutionaries, but Patrick O'Donnell (Invincible) and James Fitzharris are in Rebels?

If an article is in a sub-category of Rebels or Revolutionaries, can the article also be in Rebels or Revolutionaries, or is that double listing? Shouldn't categories be in a hierarchy, and articles listed only in one category in that hierarchy?

How does one decide whether someone is a Rebel or a Revolutionary? Who makes that decision? Perhaps Rebels are for people, articles and categories for the 19th Century, and earlier, and Revolutionaries are for people and articles in the 20th Century?

Or maybe it is easier to clear away the clutter and only have a few categories with many articles? Finestat (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, yes, these are the sort of questions you should have raised before launching widespread changes, based on what exactly? You are of course right that relatively few readers are aware of categories, though these will include the most active editors. Yes, we should probably have only a few categories with many articles. The cut-off should presumably around independence - Thomas FitzGerald, 10th Earl of Kildare is clearly in the wrong places. I wouldn't like to suggest a more detailed distinction myself, as it's not an area I take much interest in & I've never heard of many/most of the individuals, but I would have thought those in the Easter Rising were all rebels, with some some also being revolutionaries. But I think some commitment to general Left ideology is necessary for this. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. RE: "How does one decide whether someone is a Rebel or a Revolutionary?". One looks at the sources. If a majority of reliable/verifiable sources refer to someone as a "rebel", then that is the term that the body should use (per WP:VER) and what the category should reflect (per WP:CATV). While consistency is great, a broad-brush or "one size fits all" approach is unlikely to be useful/applicable here. If individual entries (like Silken Thomas) are misplaced relative to what the refs can support, then - sure - they can/should be recategorised. Or placed in both categories. But, just because one category may need a tweak, doesn't mean that all others should be changed. Surely.... Guliolopez (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps a more general category of Rebels is preferred over a more narrow category of Revolutionaries. With the caveat that Rebels should not include people from Cork, just because they come from Cork.

Once a person or article is listed in a sub-category, there should be no need to also list them in a higher category. For example, if a person is listed in Category: Members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, then they should not be also listed in Category:Irish rebels.

Category:Irish rebels should only have people like Thomas FitzGerald, 10th Earl of Kildare as there is no sub-category appropriate for him.

Thus even though Category:Irish revolutionaries has more people, they should either be in Category:Irish rebels or an appropriate sub-category, therefore Revolutionaries will probably disappear.

I'll work on moving people around to where is more appropriate, which might take a while. Finestat (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Just FYI, I think "Well, most readers will never see categories" is a weak defense to a challenge to your choices in categorizations. You could use that same argument in arguing why your decisions are valid either. What's important on Wikipedia is Consensus and when an editor or editors questions your decisions, you need to present an argument for your choices based on either policy or reliable sources, not on the perceived importance of an editing area. If categories are unimportant, then you shouldn't object to editors reverting your choices, right?

I'm following your chain of logic not what I personally believe. Having devoted a lot of time to categories over 13 years, I do think they are important for the overal cohesion on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Pale#Requested move 25 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)