Talk:Carlingford Lough/Archive 1

Lake or Fjord

FYI - Carlingford Lough is not a lake but rather a Fjord (salt water)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batsmyman (talk • contribs)

In this case, the article shouldn't include the {{infobox lake}} -- User:Docu

Request

Request to change Basin Countries to Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland?Factocop (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok if there are no objections to this change, I will proceed as in the article it already says forms part of the international border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south. Factocop (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I object NI is not a country and before you say it wikipedia is not a reliable source. Mo ainm~Talk 09:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I just think the article is a bit confusing. I just think it should be changed so as to not confuse the reader. do you have a reason why you think the article should not be consistent throughout in its content?Factocop (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Whats not consistent? Mo ainm~Talk 10:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it in my point above. In the article it reads forms part of the international border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south. But in the infobox it says Basin Countries:United Kingdom,Ireland. Obviously if Northern Ireland has an 'International Border with ROI, then it must be a country..and as United Kingdom is a Sovereign state, not a country, this should be fixed.Simples. do you have a reason why you think the article should not be consistent throughout in its content?Factocop (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out by the Admin who reverted your edit don't take your dispute to this article. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for ignoring the question and topic again. another inciteful contribution. Fantastic! This article already suggests that Northern Ireland is a country so there is no dispute here.Factocop (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

any further objections to changing the infobox to be consistent with the content of the article?Factocop (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why how many do you want? Mo ainm~Talk 21:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear Factocop, just repeating the question doesn't actual give you consensus. Nowhere from asking the first time to the second time was any consensus achieved. In fact I think what we need to do is actual change the body of the text to reflex the infobox so I suggest that we replace NI with UK in the paragraph. Either that or we remove the word "international". Bjmullan (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if you look at the so called objections, Mo, didnt present any facts to back up his objection, Domer, didnt really object but at least this time you have answered my question in part. Here is a link that suggests that both the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland are both countries. So I guess the article is right as it is. Attempts to push through a political POV, by demoting Northern Ireland to a spot on the earth will not happen here.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823.Factocop (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you are still struggling with indents, your comments have been indented by me. I have always understood the teachings of the great Saint Patrick when he used the shamrock to explain the Holy Trinity but I do struggle with the UK governments (sometimes) use of the description that the UK is a country made up of four countries. One other point; for each reference you supply saying the NI is a country another can be produced saying it is not. And here is one to start with which is also from the UK government website. So you are absolutely right we will have no political POV here. Bjmullan (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the link you provided doesnt actually prove anything. Sure, its a province. Its a province of the Island of Ireland, its a province of the United Kingdom, its a province of Europe. I think your missing the point that a region or province can still be a country. And in the context of province here, its almost slang given that a lot of people refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster, which is a province.Factocop (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

NI is not a province of Ireland, the 6 counties are only part of the province which has 9 counties. Mo ainm~Talk 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

By definition a province is a country, territory, district, or region. So technically I am right. If this is the only thing you disagree with in my last comment it seems that you would agree with me that Northern Ireland is a country then....Factocop (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be stupid and try to put words in my mouth as you well know that is not what I think. Mo ainm~Talk 12:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ok, so what part do you disagree with? (ref. to Northern Ireland) Its a province (def:a country, territory, district, or region) of the Island of Ireland, its a province of the United Kingdom, its a province of Europe. I think your missing the point that a region or province can still be a country. And in the context of province in the link provided by Bjmullan, its almost slang given that a lot of people refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster, which is a province. DO you have an actual point to make?Factocop (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Only a minority of Belfast Telegraph readers and journalists refer to NI as Ulster. NI contains only 6 counties of a Province. Thats only a fraction of a total province. Perhaps it would be more apt to call Northern Ireland 2/3's of a province? If we're going to be encyclopedic. --NorthernCounties (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you forward on the results of this survey? NC, your forgetting this isn't an encyclcopedia, if it were, fact wouldnt be so easily overlooked. But in the context of Ireland, sure, its part of Ulster, but by definition Northern Ireland is province of the British Isles and Europe. So yeah, Id be happy with your suggestion, either that or call it a country, but we all know how it pains you to recognise Northern Ireland as anything.Factocop (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on edits, not editors.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

NC, any chance you can send us a link for this survey? As I have explained below NC, you say it is not a province yet you were happy to support sources that say it is a province on the Giants Causeway page. So which is it? If you are going to object to a motion, make sure you have a reason and not 'just because'. Just highlights your motives further.Factocop (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

NI is not a a province of Ireland. Ulster is and is made up of 9 counties 6 of which are in northern Ireland, are you not aware of this Factocop? Mo ainm~Talk 15:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this, yes. My argument is that Northern Ireland is a country. Not just this page, but on other pages sources have been used against this argument to say that Northern Ireland is a statelet or region or province of the United Kingdom and not a country. You are happy to support sources that suggest Northern Ireland is a province yet here you say that Northern Ireland is not a province.

Here are 2 sources provided by O_Fenian on Giants Causeway Wiki page which were used to downgrade Northern Ireland, and which you seemed quite happy to support. "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... Bit to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork "Moreover, Northern Ireland is a province, not a country. Even before direct rule, many of the decisions affecting the economy, labour law, and wage bargaining were in reality taken in London, thereby diminishing the importance of local control." A Aughey, 1996, Duncan Morrow, Northern Ireland Politics, Longmon: London

very confusing....Factocop (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Factocop on editors has been covered here, "4.One more snide remark about the other". What part of this are they not aware off? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Domer, feel free to contribute to the conversation rather than add pointless comments unrelated to the discussion....and I think Sarek, is referring to Mo's comments suggesting that I am stupid.Factocop (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No Sarek is responding to your comments directed at me, seen also here --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so, given that there is nothing that anyone would find offensive. Now do you want to discuss the topic?Factocop (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland must not be used, when going international. United Kingdom is prefferd. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

by whom?Factocop (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Myself for starters & apparently many others here. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

so no one important then? I prefer Northern IrelandFactocop (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay, if you are ever in Ireland, I would be very careful about calling Northern Ireland the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is actully the most neutral, non-sectarian name there is. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

According to who Jeanne, NI is not a country and trying to portray it here as one is not going to work. If facts were all this user wanted then he wouldn't object to Ireland as the location as it is neutral and factual. Mo ainm~Talk 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In this situation, Republic of Ireland (a sovereign state) is being used. Thus my opposition to using Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

G'Day, you cant force a consensus upon the topic. As Jeanne has already pointed out it is more neutral and less controversial than saying that the lough is part British.Factocop (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no consensus to add a pipe-link. The onus of getting a consensus falls on the pipe-link proposer (in otherwords, you). GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

well i did not propose the pipe link...strange...anyway, given there is no consensus, I will revert back to the original state - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlingford_Lough&action=historysubmit&diff=395715948&oldid=394694234, prior to Mo's disruption.Factocop (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, as an admin, can you make the revertion then...given that there was no consensus reached pre/post change made by Mo this morning?Factocop (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I decline to edit war by proxy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Final remedies for AE case "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." Given the nature of this discussion, it's a clear infraction, with these edits here and then here. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Domer48 for bring this to our attention. Perhaps it is time that this is enforced. I doubt any further arguement will occur until tomorrow, (As I have a hunch; from previous days and weeks, that Factocop may not have internet access from home at the moment.) --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted back to original.Factocop (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Piped link

The only reason I see for this link is to try and circumvent the failure of attempts to move Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. As long as that article remains in its current location, there is no need for the link to be piped. O Fenian (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that is why I removed the piping from the box. Mo ainm~Talk 11:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I am happy with the page as it is. I dont think there is any inaccuracy in saying that it lies on the Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border.Factocop (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So you don't like it and that is the reason for your reverts. Mo ainm~Talk 11:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the page is accurate in its content. feel free to answer the questions above in the previous thread if you can?Factocop (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be 'Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border' or if you prefer 'Ireland - United Kingdom border'. Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the template states Location. Sovereign state is not mentioned. Why does it have to be piped to anywhere? I would be happy enough if it said Location:Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland Border without the pipe.Factocop (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

An international border is preffered. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there are enough sources that confirm that Northern Ireland is a country, so to say Location:Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland Border would not be inaccurate.Factocop (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's gotta be an international border, when a sovereign state (Ireland) is included. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what you want Factocop as you are the one who changed it with consensus or discussion. Mo ainm~Talk 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

doesnt make sense...come again?Factocop (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You made the changes to the article without consensus or discussion

• Changed "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
• Changed "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland" and "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland" Mo ainm~Talk 14:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that it already says in the body of the text that the lough is a glacial fjord or sea inlet that forms part of the international border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south. my changes were consistent with this. Obviously I didnt raise this in the topic discussion and so my changes were reverted and I was warned. On the other hand your change was not raised in the discussion, was not reverted and you were not warned. There seems to be a small injustice here?Factocop (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

When speaking of international borders, we should use Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom. Anyways, what's the names of the counties on either side of the lough? GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

When speaking of international borders, we should use Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Also its a bit vague to say on on the border if the border is 200 miles long. The County in Northern Ireland is Down.Factocop (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Either use to sovereign states or no sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the consensus version. Mo ainm~Talk 15:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus hasnt been reached, should be restored to original version before your disruption.Factocop (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you not to comment on editors but on the edits it is a personal attack to say my edit was disruption. Mo ainm~Talk 15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

From where I see it, all but 1 editor is in agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that alot of people who would be interested in this discussion are not aware of it, its not really a fair representation.Factocop (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your refusal to indent properly, is becoming annoying. Please do it correctly? GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

What is the question you keep repeatedly asking editors to answer Factocop? Mo ainm~Talk 12:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you would respond to the points I made earlier -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACarlingford_Lough&action=historysubmit&diff=394759794&oldid=394758907

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACarlingford_Lough&action=historysubmit&diff=395559283&oldid=395554862.

and I was hoping Northern Counties would respond to this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACarlingford_Lough&action=historysubmit&diff=395712600&oldid=395568223

......14:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factocop (talk • contribs)

I have answered twice already NI is not a country. Mo ainm~Talk 14:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me the diffs responding to the points I made?Factocop (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You havent answered the questions again. ohh well, if in doubt and for lack of an argument, just ignore. well done. another constructive argument...(smirk)...ohh and you should probably tell the British Government as they beg to differ.Factocop (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, NI isn't sovereign. Let's use [Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom|Ireland-United Kingdom]. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, a country does not have to be a sovereign state to have an international border.Factocop (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Change the content to RoI - United Kingdom, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The body of the text says that the lough is a glacial fjord or sea inlet that forms part of the international border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south. so shouldnt the infobox reflect this in location: Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland Border without the need to pipe it anywhere?Factocop (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Change content to reflect infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think we are allowed to pipe like that after the ROI/Ireland naming dispute. Mo ainm~Talk 15:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Would pipelinking to counties suffice? GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Might be the other way round with the piping bit confused on the naming issue. Mo ainm~Talk 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

We certainly can't use Northern Ireland. That would be like saying Lake Huron is surrounded by Ontario & the United States. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dont think Ontario is a country so its not the same.Factocop (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ontario (like Northern Ireland) isn't a sovereign state. If ya wanna use Northern Ireland? then use something other then the RoI. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you telling me that only Sovereign states can have international borders?Factocop (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He is telling you NI is not a country. Mo ainm~Talk 15:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is really hard to believe anything you say Mo, first you said Northern was not a country that it is a province and then you said that it is not a province either. A lot of holes in your argument.Factocop (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland, is like Scotland, England & Wales - they make up a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am aware of this. SO enlighten me, what kind of border to England and Scotland share?Factocop (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the UK has broken up, it's not an internation border. The border between England/Scotland isn't like the border between Canada/United States. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So England and Scotland are not countries? And ill remind you that the template states location, not Border Sovereign StatesFactocop (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the 4th or 5th time, I've had to fix your indent. Anyways, I don't care if England & Scotland are called countries, provinces, territories etc etc. They're not independant, haven't been since 1707. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You didnt say that. My point is that you dont have to be a Soverign state to be a country or have an international border. Agreed?Factocop (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so a country has to be Soverign State to have an international border. what do you call a border shared by 2 countries that are not sovereign states then?Factocop (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, see WP:INDENT. Secondly, call'em national borders or whatever, but they're not international. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

well by definition international means - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/international where as national only refers to one nation. So to use the word national to describe something relating to two or more countries is in correct. I have proven you wrong again. LOL.Factocop (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Boo hoo. But we're still not using RoI & NI together. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Very mature. Well I have just picked your argument apart so a new suggestion will need to be raised because there clearly is no rationale for a change other than 'just because' and I dont use indents.Laughable really.Factocop (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My alleged behaviour is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there's absolutely no consensus to pipe-link. The onus of getting a consensus, falls on the change proposer (not the status quoers). As there's no consensus, this continued discussion is pointless. If ya got anything futher to say, ya know where my office is (my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Where can someone apply for a Northern Irish Paspport or a Scottish Passport? Mo ainm~Talk 15:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends, where are you applying from?Factocop (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

From Ireland do I look for the northern Ireland embassy? Can't find one I have looked. Mo ainm~Talk 15:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the Island of Ireland? If you are looking in Northern Ireland, you will not find a Northern Irish Embassy as Emabassy's tend to be located on foreign soil.Factocop (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just give me the address of one northern Ireland emabassy anywhere. Mo ainm~Talk 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you are entitled to one?Factocop (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove term "international border"

I suggest that we change the sentence "forms part of the international border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south." As there has been a bit of warring here lately I wanted to discuss it before making any edits. The word international is both unnecessary and incorrect as GoodDay pointed out above it would be like saying Lake Huron is surrounded by Ontario & the United States. Bjmullan (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

How is the word "international" incorrect in this context? From what I see, the international border between the two independent states of ROI and UKGBNI passes up the loch. Really the wording just needs changing to say something like the international border passes through the loch. LemonMonday Talk 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Bjmullan's proposition, now that the factors that led to edit warring have departed. --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So what precisely are you saying - that the international border doesn't pass through the Lough? LemonMonday Talk 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it refers to the aforementioned "Northern Ireland" as people who have previously debated this argued that NI wasn't a sovereign state. International wouldo be more applicable if it said "...between UK to the north and the ROI to the south.". I don't believe that removing "international" ignores, or misleads the fact that the border still exists. --NorthernCounties (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So we just say "international border between the RoI and the UK of GB&NI". That should cover it. The word "international" qualifies precisely what sort of border we're talking about, and as such I think it is relevant and necessary. LemonMonday Talk 17:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The word "international" means between nations. But the people on either side of Carlingford Louth form part of the same nation, as evidenced by the amended Irish constitution that forms part of the Good Friday agreement agreed with the UK. So international is not appropriate in this context. By all means mention the border, but do not attribute a character to it that the States on either side have agreed that it should not have. Ardmacha (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This long standing edit is raring its ugly head again. 'International' has been in the body of the text for a long time. It is an international border. no need to suddenly change it 2 months after the discussion went no where and no consensus was gained. You could say that County Derry/Londonderry and County Donegal are separated by an international border, but it does not imply that both are countries which I gather is the issue here. Afterlife10 (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You revert edits without being sure what the issue is and without taking part in any discussion! Whether it has taken 2 months (better) or two days to make the change is not relevant. Please refrain from edit warring, I see from your block log that you should be aware what happens to people who do. Bjmullan (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well i've joined the discussion, I know what the issue is. So I'm content with the edits I've made. There is clearly no consensus here for that change, and if there is why did it take you so long to make the edit. Just relax as there is no need for the tone ok. Its fine the way it is. Just leave ok. Afterlife10 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

--Domer48_'fenian' 14:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone see consensus above to change the content of the article as per Bjmullan? No me neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.8 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there really a need for the word "international"? I think "the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland" works fine. ~Asarlaí 15:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So someone's gone ahead and taken it out. The border between NI and the ROI is a border between two sovereign states (the UK and Ireland). Yet more pointless POV Irish nationalist editing from a select group of editors who can't or won't see things as they are. Keep fighting the good fight, Wiki-Volunteers. Uniting Ireland, one edit at a time. JonChapple^Talk 10:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Its just further spill over from other Northern Ireland related pages. With attempts to demote the status of Northern Ireland. I'm not sure where the consensus was to make the change, although every revert seems to be met with a plea for discussion or accusations of socking. I will revert back to the original. I also dont think bjmullan should be removing other peoples comments, sock or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.147.195 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors in support of this superfluous addition has been indefinitely blocked, like wise his two socks, I suggest a balanced be provided for its inclusion.This is not the same as the diatribe above. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you ignore everything from the third sentence onwards, my comment above still stands as nothing but fact. It IS an international border, as one between two states. Where is your counter-argument? JonChapple^Talk 18:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that this is probably one of the most ridiculous arguments I have yet seen on the Internet.

The trouble actually comes from the English language, and its definitions of words like nation and country. Here are some salient facts, for anyone interested.

• Northern Ireland is a country.
• Ireland is a country (that is, the whole of the island).
• The UK is a country.
• The Republic of Ireland is a country.
• England, Scotland and Wales are countries.
• Ireland (again, the island) is a nation of peoples.
• The Republic of Ireland is also a nation.
• England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are also nations.
• The UK is a sovereign state.
• The Republic of Ireland is a sovereign state.
• The border between Northern Ireland (or the UK if you prefer) and the Republic of Ireland is an international one.

Now here's some irony: people who object to referring to Northern Ireland as a province, also object to referring to the Republic of Ireland - as opposed to "Ireland". I don't know how many times I've seen arguments on the Internet regarding the name of the Republic. They refer to that country's Constitution, though that name was claimed for a couple of reasons. One was out of fear that the country we know as Northern Ireland would claim, every bit as legitimately, the name "Ireland". Their fears, as it turned out, were unfounded. However, it was debated whether they should rename Northern Ireland as "Ulster" on at least two occasions. This has the same legitimacy as claiming the name of the island as the name of the southern state, as the one traditional area is larger than the other in both cases. The other reason for choosing the name "Ireland" (as opposed to the name Éire, for example) for the southern state was one of simple, though very effective, propaganda - as has ,been admitted and revealed.

So it is hypocritical to object to calling Northern Ireland a province, or even by its nickname "Ulster", while adhering strictly to the name of the island as the name of the southern state.

It should be noted that Republicans in Ireland, and elsewhere, also often object even to reference to the name "Northern Ireland", preferring instead to refer to it by the number of counties it contains - often with the addition of the word "occupied". This is, without doubt, political point of view. I do hope that this "POV" has not been favoured on Wikipedia as a result of systemic bias or political agenda.

Debate which includes such intransigent and dismissive statements such as "Boo hoo. But we're still not using RoI & NI together" is not debate at all.

The facts are listed in the bullet point list above, and one should choose carefully from that list, depending on context, and the best way to avoid confusion - not when it is politically expedient to do so. Unfortunately, the terms some people have used - including governments - have made it difficult to avoid confusion. A situation could arise, for example, whereby a description of the people specifically from the Republic of Ireland would be "the Irish". However, that refers to all the people of Ireland, not just Irish nationals (citizens of the Republic of Ireland). It is frequently used by the news media also to refer to the people, or sports teams or individuals, of Northern Ireland. In such articles however, the context is usually clear: the Irish from Northern Ireland, or the Northern Irish.

Bringing things back slightly more back to topic, I would imagine that bordered areas elsewhere in Europe refer specifically to sovereign territories, rather than, say individual states of Germany. These are presumably also referred to as international borders or boundaries, and there should be no difference between those articles and this one.

If you're looking for consensus then I would suggest "UK & Republic of Ireland" and for the word "international" to be reinserted, if it hasn't already been. These are simple, indisputable facts. There is no reason, other than from a political perspective which would see no reference to the factual existence of Northern Ireland or "the occupied six counties" at all, that the term "international border" should be omitted.

If, however, there has been precedent set in Wikipedia for an object which straddles the border between two regions such as, for example, Saarland and France, then there can be no argument against the use of "Northern Ireland & the Republic of Ireland" in the article. --81.135.29.171 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-opening of debate

Interesting that there was never a consensus for this change.Gravyring (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree. No.consensus for this change, and it appears the edit was made without fully discussing the issue. Hackneyhound (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There was and is consensus for the change that was done back in May 2011; and other for the input of a disruptive sock this has been the stable version. If you wish to change it back I suggest you put you're arguments forward and look to get consensus for the change rather than reverting as Hackneyhound did earlier. Bjmullan (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

there were 4 against the change, yet the edit was made mid discussion. There version was stable before this violation. Well revert back to stable original version and you can make your case.Hackneyhound ([[User talk:|talk]]) 17:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hound the above shows consensus and sense for the edit, 4 against the change including socks. So ,what is the case you are putting forward? Make sure to have read all the above.Murry1975 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Dont worry Murry, ive read the entire talkpage. And from what I can see there www no overwhelming consensus for change and the change was made mid discussion. Though it does appear that Afterlife was a sock, I dont think they were socking for anyone else on this particular topic. Have you read the entire talkpage? I'll revert back to the original version and you can make your points for change?Hackneyhound (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hackneyhound this has been the stable version for 10 months and is the current consensus. Please put forward a case for the change and we can discuss it here. Bjmullan (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hackneyhound you have been revert again. Please discuss and get consensus. Bjmullan (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I read the talkpage Hound. Do you not understand the very good points made by Goodday above? The fact you missed Lemon Monday as a sock is a bit odd. The change came about mid-discussion? Discussions dont stay open forever and there was very little against when the term was removed on 26 May after been opened in November, the discussion attracted more attention after that alright but consensus was for the change, even after there was no reason established to go back. Now what is happening is you are going against the spirit of the 1RR, waiting until its outside the 24 hour mark, a word of warning edit warring slow is against wiki guidelines just as much as breaching the 1RR or 3RR rules. Admins are very aware of edit warring in troubles subjects and they dont take kindly to it one way or the other, once the spirit of the guidelines is breached ask any of the above socks or read their talkpages;)Murry1975 (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that conversations don't stay open forever but JonChapple obviously had a concern that the change had been made non the less. There was no overwhelming consensus. That is a fact! As I've mentioned before the term was removed without consensus yet a pipe still exists to the UK-ROI border page which you consider an international border over NI-ROI border. Where consensus is not reached, a common ground should be sought but both yourself and Bjmullan seem intent on preventing construction change that is acceptable to all. Interesting that both you and Bjmullan should be here at the same time. Hackneyhound (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather the accuse me and Murry1975 as being socks why don't you just put forward an argument for making the change. BTW Murry1975 has already warned you about slow edit war, the next time it will be at AN/I. Happy Saint Patrick's day. Bjmullan (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't accuse anyone of anything, let alone sockpuppetry. Seems your already enjoying st paddys day Bjmullan. I think we all are aware of 1RR. I think the change should be reverted because there was no consensus for the edit. Irrespective of that for all intensive purposes NI is considered a country on wikipedia. So the border is an international border. I can except that it is a bit wordy but given that the pipe is directed to what is also considered an international border, there does appear to be a contradiction. Obviously in the topic below on the location field, there is a dead lock but the fact that you and Murry will not even consider a compromise is not very progressive.Hackneyhound (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hackneyhound you keep talking about the passed rather than putting forward a case for the future. This topic area has been stable for 10 months and whether you think that their is no consensus or not is irrelevant, the passed 10 months has clearly proved that there was. As for enjoying this great day I very much doubt it as I think I will be spending the time in the pub watch England beat us :)

Your nearly right Hound, NI is considered a country on wiki, with no stand alone international ties or recognition, not a sovereign country that has such. Compromise? What compromise is being offered? The unencyclopaedic one? Which isnt a compromise its just your point which if you have read above is shown to be flawed. There is no contradiction in the article again read above. A contradiction would be stating international and only mentioning one part with international recognition and the other without, thats not a POV thats a point blank, blunt encyclopaedic take on it. If you can show me how such an addition would improve the article please tell, as you have been asked to four times above.Murry1975 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Granted the page has been stable for 10 months but it was stable for a lot longer than that before the non consensus edit. And in the discussion above I've yet to see a viable argument For the international term to be removed. For every source that says that NI isn't a country, there is a source that says that it is a country. Aside from that a country does not have to be a sovereign state to have an international border. Maybe the compromise is to remove the pipelink then as the text references NI and ROI. Terrible game, wasn't our day. Ohh well.Hackneyhound (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

" a country does not have to be a sovereign state to have an international border" Yes it does, Wales and England are countries not an international border and about a dozen other examples.Murry1975 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Your last point I think is missing a few words....what kind of border separates England and Wales exactly? Hackneyhound (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Its not missing anything, dont try to alter what I said. Does, as asked above, NI have international recognition embassies or consulates? Ambassadors? International borders?

Here is a piece from the International Boundaries Research Unit based at Durham Uni. http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/news/boundary_news/search_results/ you will see that each heading is Boundry: Ireland-UK and here too http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/search/?boundary=220 . Let me know if I missed anything.Murry1975 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Embassy and consulates do not maketh a country. What kind of border do England and Wales share exactly? ...Hackneyhound (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

They maketh the country international, along with other stuff. What kind of border do England and Wales have? Not an international one, an internal UK border, as put forward in Wales–England border. Some describe it as an administrative boundary, why what would you call it? They are nations/countries yes, they both dont have international boundries within thier own right, no matter what some wish, that would be POV and un-encyclopaedic.Murry1975 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I not so sure that embassies are mandatory to maintain country status. Also I don't you can reference Wikipedia either. Can you find a source at least outlining the status of the English-Welsh, or England Scotland Border. If you object to keeping international in the body of the text, should we then remove the pipe to the ROI-UK border page? As this pipe is a contradiction

I have not referenced, I have merely shown you where it has been discussed and referenced within the project. There, as I have stated, is no contradtion, the pipelink placed in the article body brings you to the relevant article about the border. Stating NI-ROI with international would be wrong and un-encyclopaedic. I have shown you one of the bodies who research international borders show when mentioning NI the use the Ireland-UK border. No embassies arent mandatory, passports and internation recognition are but embassies help show international recognition. Now if you wish to change please show how, why and what improvement would be made to the project. Bare in mind it shold be NPOV and encyclopaedic. Also I have asked you what would you call the border between England and Wales, would you mind answering. Try here it doesnt allow reading but the title might give it away. Murry1975 (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to need a little more than a book title. Given that NI dies not share an internal border with England, Scotland or Wales, I'm not so sure NI would feature in the book heavily. And maybe you should check out Northern Ireland page if you are curious as to the validity of NI as a country . As for this page, NI is a country and hence shares an international border with ROI. And given that the term international was removed without consensus, we should revert to original. Ohh and the pipelibk is a complete contradiction.Hackneyhound (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop trying to twist my comments, the book is a reference to your question on the England-Wales border. I am not questioning the validity on NI being a country, again stop twisting my words but it has no internationally recognised sovereign status and thus as pointed out above has no international border with anyone unlike the United Kingdom. Also you have failed to answer my question.Murry1975 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

what was the point of linking to a book that no one can view? My loose understanding of a country is a geographical entity, where as a sovereign state is a political entity. My confusion is that you seem to think that only countries that are sovereign States can have an international border yet you can offer no argument in reference to countries like Northern Ireland who are not sovereign states. So what kind of border would two countries share if they were not sovereign states?

I have linked you to a website that you ignore [1]. I have shown you a book thats title supplies the answer to a question you asked about the England-Wales border, even if we cant see the pages. Your turn to answer my question what type of border do England and Wales have in your view? There is no confusion, sovereign states are political and borders between sovereign states are international ones. Your applying the term to a province of the UK and sovereign state is incorrect as only the UK can have such a polical boundry with another sovereign state.Murry1975 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The title of the book reveals as much about the English-welsh border as a Harry potter title, and the link you provided is just one source. You still have not answered my question...what kind of borer do non sovereign countries share? I believe Wales and England share an international border as they are both countries.

And that would be OR, where as the book and website are RS. Non sovereign states share different type borders depending on their status and realtion to each other, from internal UK (Wales-England) to state borders (New York-New Jersey) to porvincal (British Columbia- Alberta) to county borders (Louth-Down). Now please supply sources to back your view. BTW you have just proven that the insertion of international is POV based on the opinion you have of countries, sovereign or not, having international borders.Murry1975 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a country, and Republic is a sovereign country. in Geographical terms, these 2 countries are separated by an international border. But if you wish to lessen the status of Northern Ireland further, Murry we could for the benefit of this page pretend that Northern Ireland does not exist? Also I dont think a book title alone can be considered a reliable source, but if you say so.Hackneyhound (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Again you havent answered my question, which is uncivil of you as per WP:CIVIL, also again you try to twist my words again uncivil. Now where are your sources as oppposed to your opinions? The website I directed you to is a RS, very RS actually yet when they mention NI and a border they use Ireland-UK. Where am I lessening the status of NI? Very uncivil.Murry1975 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dry your eyes please. I have seen questions on your talkpage go unanswered and deleted so don't start quoting a wiki policy you have no grasp of. I can't see a single question mark in your last comment so what question are you referring to? I have been unable to find any cross border agencies that exist between British Government and ROI, however a number of cross border agencies exist between NI and ROI. Why would the UK leave their cross border liaisons in the hands of a regional government. Makes no sense by your rationale. Perhaps read WP:CIV as you clearly have not quite got the hang of things.Hackneyhound (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you doing on my talkpage? Stalking? Me read it? You are still being uncivil.

"Now please supply sources to back your view" , does it need a question mark?Murry1975 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry please read WP:CIV again as you obviously do not understand some of its key points. Yea I've read the discussion on your talkpage regarding this very article and I've also used the "user contributions" tool aswell. I believe you can also use these same tools. So is that uncivil. I don't think so but if you feel you have a strong case then I suggest you take it to the admin notice board. If you wish to discuss the validity if Northern Ireland as a country and its International border with ROI then I think this discussion should be moved to the Northern Ireland page. Can you provide a source to back up your claim that only sovereign countries can have international borders? And yes the English language dictates that a question be followed by a question Mark(?). You'll get the hang if it.Hackneyhound (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a source already. I have not qestioned the validity of NI as a country. Show me where. Do not twist my words, BTW the Northern Ireland talkpage is on my watchlist, from hunting down an IP hopping sock, so I have seen your misrepresented post there and too will reply. Do not accuse me of being uncivil, no where have I been uncivil. It is uncivil to make commments like "Dry your eyes", its uncivil to twist the words to misrepresent what I have stated, its uncivil to not answer questions when asked. For all the tea that the people of China drink show me where I was uncivil? And I expect an answer on that instead of the uncivil no response you normally give. Murry1975 (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Calm down Murry, you will burst a blood vessel. Maybe get a cup of tea. I'm not twisting your words but your comments are not very coherent. Do you have a source to hack up your claim that only sovereign countries can have internal borders? No is the answer. Are you stalking me now? That is just uncivil by tour understanding. Hackneyhound (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Again comments on the editor. Uncivil. I have shown my source. Why are you obsessed with my talk page? I can remove what I want off it. It wasnt even your comment that you are refering to. You still have not answered so your point is dead in the sea (or in this case Loch Cairlinn- Dtuigeann tú Gaeilge Hound?). Murry1975 (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your source is not relevant to the question I have asked. I'll ask again...can you provide a source that backs up your claim that only sovereign countries can share international borders? Stop quoting a policy you do not understand. Again if you think you have a case, then take it to the admin notice. And board. And please do not edit my comments.Hackneyhound (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is in the source provided. Read them. I edited your comment because as you have been informed on the ANI board and on BJmullans page (both on my watchlist) your netbook is adding characters, in the above case your comment was a single line which altered this page and the easy of which this page could be read. It is not unreasonable that I should edit it in an appropriate manor. Your point is now mute as you have not given a source and I would suggest that this discussion is dead too. If there are any further additions I suggest that they would be well made with relevant material. This discussion has brought too much away from the project just like the previous attempts above. I understand the policy and you seem to be missing points of it, a brief summary for your continued enjoyment in the project: Dont comment on the editor, answer questions asked in good faith, dont twist comments by other editors to show consensus or misrepresent thier points. You didnt answer ny last question, you being Irish I was wondering: "Dtuigeann tú Gaeilge?", just wondering. Murry1975 (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've not tried to twist any of your comments but you leave them open to interpretation. Were you being civil when you referred to User:Gravyring as Gravy boat? Unfortunately I am not one of the 3% of the population of the island that speak the language fluently but its on my to do list to learn. I did indeed check the link to the Durham uni site.I checked the documents and could not find a definition for international border. The most recent document focuses on "cross-border" co-operation ans does not mention the status of the border. I'll ask again, can you provide a source to back up your claim that a country must be sovereign to share an international border?Hackneyhound (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Its on the "Durham uni site". Again. 3%? Old statistics. I will ask you to show your source again. Your point is moot. Murry1975 (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It could be considered uncivil to regard another users opinion as irrelevant. UK sorry Murry but I am unable to find a definition for sovereign country borders in the Url you provided. Can you show me exactly where to look?Hackneyhound (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Irish language name

The supposed Irish derivation of Cairlinn is incorrect, refer to the Carlingford article for the correct Nordic derivation. Carling is obviously Viking (Norse) and the fact that the Irish name Snám Aignech is completely different confirms that Cairlinn is derived from Norse. DesmondW (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Geography

Is it not the case that the south side of Lough also includes County Armagh as well as County Louth? This issue may partly depend on where the Lough ends and the tidal river estuary ends. Maps are touch and go on this point e.g. http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,711561,819189,6,3 http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,711561,819189,6,7 Ardmacha (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

International

Struggling to see the problem with the word "international" before border. It is an international boundary.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Border

Think ive stepped on a land mine at this page. Just wondering if there is a problem describing the location as 'Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border'? I know user domer has undone this edit already so just putting it out there. I think my proposed change is a little more specific than what is there. What is wiki if is it just mildly correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.139.153 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been reverted again. The reason why NI is not used is the it not a country and the article you linked too doesn't exist either. Also this has been discussed here in the past. Bjmullan (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bjmullan, I didnt link to an article. I'm pretty sure Northern Ireland is a country, but either way, Northern Ireland does not need to be a country to have a border, just the same as a county or state or region or whatever can have a border. Just seems to make sense given that the Ireland map directly above that field points to the location on the NI - ROI border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.139.153 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are sure that NI is a country I suggest you tell them all here. Yes you did link to an non existing article: Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border. I suggest you read the above thread on international borders for some background. Please also see the top of the talk page for editing restrictions which apply to this article. BTW I indented your comments. May I also suggest that you register as a user rather than using an IP address. Bjmullan (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ohh sorry, didnt mean to link to non existent page. As for the border, i dont think i referred to the border as international. The Northern Ireland wiki page says that it is one of the four countries of the UK. So it is a country then? Either way, like i said a border does not need a country to exist. I dont know what the fuss is about. Also 1 page edit rule also applies to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.139.153 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For several intents and purposes on Wikipedia, Northern Ireland is classified as a country, however a border does not have to be between two countries - it can be between entities, and Northern Ireland is an entity. I find it ironic Domer48 and Bjmullan have reverted this change despite the article's lede stating the same thing that the IP is trying to put into the infobox! Also note how the infobox box states "Basin countries" and what is mentioned in there? Northern Ireland not United Kingdom. So it seems inconsistent to state United Kingdom when its more specific and just as accurate to state Northern Ireland - especially considering as the area of contention here states "Location" not "Country". Mabuska ^(talk) 21:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly think the change is worth making, as I've explained already, the map points to a location on the NI-ROI border, so to change the location to NI-ROI border should not be a big issue. All in favour of this change say Aye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.138.59 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a move request for the target article, since it's however a border between the sovereign states of the UK and Ireland it's not very likely to succeed. Unless the article is moved, I disagree with any piping as you're attempting a move via the back door. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As well as the target article which One Night has mentioned there is the issue with the Template:Infobox Ocean which talks about countries in the international sense not just the way the UK government does. So it's a nay from me as well. Bjmullan (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to create any sort of link to another page. My original edit was my first edit and I was not entirely sure of how to edit the template. I simply want to change the location to say Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border, not create a pipe to another page. The change makes sense, given that the map also reflects the intended location on the map.

User:86.155.231.208 not sure what you mean by My original edit was my first edit as the talkpage edit above was your first edit on Wikipedia. If you are saying that you did this edit then I suggest you read Sock puppetry and consider registering as a user before you get a block (again?). Bjmullan (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Bjmullan. it was my first attempt to edit an infobox. You are a registered user yet you seem to get blocked so I am not sure what benefit there is. Anyway off topic...I have checked the Template:Infobox ocean page and under location it states: location = Text about the ocean's location, add country if the ocean is located in several countries so I don't know how you can tell in what sense is acceptable to reference a country. I think if it had mentioned Sovereign State then mentioning UK would be applicable but as it simply says country, I think it is ok to use NI-ROI border as the location field value. Especially as Basin Countries are NI and ROI and the location on the map only shows Ireland, rather than the entire British Isles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.231.208 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we are still not sure if we are speak to one (86.155.231.208) or two (86.155.231.208 & 86.153.139.153) users. Perhaps you could confirm who you actual are? On the country thing, as far a NI goes one man's country is another man's province, occupied states, whatever... so I think it would be safer to go with UK which is internationally recognised. If you are 86.153.139.153 I suggest not making any changes again without consensus unless you want a bigger block. Bjmullan (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

you ignored my attempts for discussion so I assumed you had no issue with the change.

But in the Basin Countries field it already states Northern Ireland not UK so surely the page should be consistent? The field is Location so I do not see the issue with stating Northern Ireland as the location. I was unaware that my IP has changed, if it has then it is merely an accident. I have only been editing wiki as off the last 2 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.231.208 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The against arguement is seriously flawed considering other aspects of the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am the former IP. Just a heads up. I agree Mabuska. The against argument is a limp erection. How do pages ever get updated if people refuse to engage in discussion and only see what they want to see. Turns wikipedia into a bit of a joke.Gravyring (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

Please abide by WP:CIVIL, whilst it raised a chuckle for me, comments like "The against argument is a limp erection." do nothing to help the situation. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. What I should of said was that the "against argument was very weak".Gravyring (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC).

I am here from the DR Noticeboard. I have looked at the article lead. From the point of view of an uninvolved reader, the more specific reference to Northern Ireland is helpful in placing Carlingford Lough and is consistent with the map shown. UK is obviously a much more general reference. You could qualify the reference to Northern Ireland if needed and/or wanted and say "the Northern Ireland region of the United Kingdom." Again, the specificity of NI is helpful to the reader and would be better, in my opinion, even with the UK qualifier.Coaster92 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This discussion continues here at Dispute Resolution. Bjmullan (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Though I've closed that discussion as a DRN mediator/clerk. I had no more than clicked the save button before I thought of a few possible compromises. I'd like to float them out here, but if there is no consensus that it is acceptable to everyone, then those who want to change the "location" parameter need to try to establish consensus, otherwise the article needs to remain unchanged for the reasons I described at the DRN discussion.

• First: Considering the purpose of that parameter, it doesn't seem to me that any of the variations mentioned so far, including the current text, are really customary if you look at other usages in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_ocean or, more accurately, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_bay. The customary content for "location" would be something more like:

• Northeastern coast of Ireland or
• Northeastern coast of Ireland between Cooley Peninsula and Mourne Mountains or simply
• Irish sea

• Second: Since that solution would probably just move the dispute to the Countries parameter, consider Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) border

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The outcome is a little vague. All I can take from this is that consensus can outweigh fact or accuracy. But aside from this Transporter Man has changed the infobox. The location field for this new infobox does not credit any particular criteria. Bjmullans previous objections were that the Ocean Template did not allow for Northern Ireland in the location field which was a fabrication of truth, and 2nd that Northern Ireland isnt a country stating that one man's country is another man's province, occupied states. 1st Argument is incorrect and the 2nd suggests that Bjmullan may be pushing a particular POV. Aside from this, there really isnt anything preventing the location stating Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border. I can see only a few options:

1. Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border piped to ROI - UK border page as suggested by Mabuska 2. Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border suggested by Gravyring 3. Irish sea 3. Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) border 3rd party Coaster92 commented the specificity of NI is helpful to the reader. There does appear to be room for improvement.Gravyring (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC).

With regards to the status of Northern Ireland my view is NPOV or do you consider the International Organization for Standardization also to have a POV? Please also remember to comment on the content not the content providers. Bjmullan (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Bjmullan, I can only say what I see. When you make comments like one man's country is another man's province, occupied states in reference to NI, and seemingly going page to page removing the term British Isles from a broad range of articles, what is one to think?Gravyring (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Gravyring, apology accepted. When I said one man's country is another man's province, occupied states I was not necessarily giving my opinion but pointing out that other people do have a different view. I'm here to improve the project and if you find me not doing that let me know. 22:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Im not here to cause any trouble, but I do believe I've gone though the proper process.I opened a discussion on this and I raised a DR. But you have been exactly open minded. You have made a few objections:

1. That my change piped to a non existent page and that NI was not a country. [2] A rookie mistake in piping to a page that didnt exist, but changing the location to 'NI-ROI border' does not suggest that it is a country, even If I believe to be, it just suggests that it on the border. 2. You claimed that the template did not allow for NI in the location field Template:Infobox Ocean which talks about countries in the international sense. This is no longer true as Coaster92 has changed the template and it is open to interpretation as to how the location field can be read. 3. That you did not want to loose the link to the 'ROI-UK border' WP [3]. I do not want to remove the link to this page, simply pipe it from 'NI-ROI border' text. Forgive if I am wrong, but piping location:NI-ROI border to ROI-UK border page does not go against any of your objections, with the Coaster92 agreeing that the article would benefit from specifying Northern Ireland. Unless you would prefer that we revert the page back to 2007.Gravyring (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a compromise here. Bjmullan's near valid point was that the link to the ROI-UK border wiki page should not be lost and adds to the article. So with Mabuska's suggesion, I think Location should state: NI-ROI border' but pipe linked to ROI-UK border. That seems like the logical outcome from this dispute. If there are no objections in the next few days then I will make the change.86.155.231.208 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC). Ohh sorry, forgot to login.Gravyring (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

Yes, I object. The border is between two sovereign states - the UK and Ireland. Since consistency is so important apparently, I've changed the country to "United Kingdom". Even if reverted, that scuppers any "consistency" argument anyway since there are two (if not more) ways of making the article consistent, one of which involves keeping the current name of the border. As I've already said if you want to move the target article start a requested move on that article's talk page, the fact that there's already been at least two failed moves shows that it isn't likely to fail and also shows what the consensus term is for the border. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I also object and agree with the reasons which One Night has given above. I also agree with the edit change to have the UK consistent in the infobox. Bjmullan (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

By right i can revert that using the closing statement of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Carlingford_Lough_-_Location_field as justification as it closed stating that what is in the location parameter has been there for such a length of time, and the same can be said for basic countries. So if you two are going to not budge from your positions i see no need for me to. Hackney should know not to make changes whilst something is under discussion.

Its really disappointing to see this. Hackney, I dont know what talk page you have been reading, but I have never made any mention of changing the name of the target page. And your actions border on vandalism. If consistency is not important, why make a change based on consistency. And Bjmullan, why agree with him. So you want consistency but you dont believe in consistency as a valid point? Northern Ireland is mentioned in the Article 3 times, the UK is mentioned once and with the lough located on the Map of Ireland, consistency would suggest that Northern Ireland should be sewn throughout the article not removed. The issue was brought to DR and Coaster suggested that the article would benefit from stating location as NI-ROI border, as the location on the template does allow for this.Gravyring (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Transportman's suggestion, the second one i can agree with. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact if we look at this 2007 example - all three instances state "Northern Ireland" not "United Kingdom". No surpise it was your comrade friend Sarah777 who removed the piping to state "United Kingdom - Republic if Ireland" and after that anybody trying to revert it back has been reverted by, including one or two others, two of the main objectors here. POV pushing and ganging up for the last 2-3 years or what? There has never been an actual unanimous concensus for change from Northern Ireland to United Kingdom - just as there won't be one for a reversal. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mabuska, I asked only a couple of days ago for you to refrain from commenting about editors. What will it take to make you stop? Can I suggest again that you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Bjmullan (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The result of the DR was "No consensus for change, article should remain as is unless consensus is obtained, perhaps via a RFC, see my extended comments below. — TransporterMan" so what one editor suggested in DR is hardly going to be given any more weight than another. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Domer, it would of been nice if you had joined the DR as you had been invited, but your comment is true. Though there has never been consensus on this page for any of the changes so should we revert back to the 2007 diff provided by Mabuska? Gravyring (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ohh what is your objection to the change?Gravyring (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Gravyring, why did you remove the pipelink in the lead? It has nothing to do with your objections in the infobox, the pipelink gives a reader the chance to go to that article if they wish, removing it is not improving the project, or going to garner support for your proposals. I have read your and the other editors comments above, for a new editor to call a DR is odd, good, but odd. You might want to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and the other pieces on that page. BTW I am reverting that edit, we are here to improve the project, that edit does not.Murry1975 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Murry1975. The edit makes sense. I wasnt able to comment earlier as there was some sort of Website problem. Here is my reasoning.

1. If you read further up the page, the term 'International' was removed in reference to the border without consensus.

2. My proposal to change location to NI-ROI border has been blocked, because some users have said that NI is not a country. I know, irrelevant to the location field of the infobox, but suggested piping NI-ROI border text in location field of infobox to ROI-UK border page. This has been blocked as NI and ROI apparently do not share an international border. So I thought it best to remove the pipe linking to the ROI-UK border page, to reflect this. Hope this makes sense. Gravyring (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Typed a reply went to save and edit conflict came up. The pipelink is a good one, whether or not it conforms to your objective for the article it conforms to the objects of pipelinks within the project. I have read the above. And right now doing some futher reading.Murry1975 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the SPA has falsely accused me of vandalism, I won't waste time on it (it being the SPA) any more. If anything concrete comes up, if some non-Loyalist can let me know. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Your Objection was hardly concrete, more soft and limp. Even if a concrete objection did arrise to the proposed change, I don't see why anyone would want to contact you, let a lone a non-loyalistGravyring (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You can just use the watchlist to monitor pages. You made an edit without consensus, just to prove a point. Vandalism in my book.Gravyring (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Gravyring I suggest you read Wikipedia:Vandalism because we really don't care what you consider vandalism and if you're not sure what SPA means have a read of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Bjmullan (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bjmullan, I have read Wikipedia:Vandalism and it seems that wikipedia would also consider Hackneys edit as vandalism. As for SPA, I think it is obvious to all what the purpose of your account is, with the continual need to remove British Isles from articles, and here for some reason diminish the existence of the border between NI and ROI. As for me, I think it is best to focus on one article at a time.Gravyring (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Gravyring maybe you could do two things: One explain where in Wikipedia:Vandalism it explains that One Night In Hackney edit was vandalism and also what you were doing with this edit which you have no consensus for? Bjmullan (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bjmullan, there is a terrible stench of hypocrisy coming from you. Hackney made an edit purely to cause disruption, and without consensus. SO rather than making a revert, you supported his actions. So I don't see what your problem is. I've outlined my reasons for the suggested change. I have yet to see you outline the reasons behind your objection. The location field does not require the entry of a country or sovereign state, just the location. Can you explain why you think Northern Ireland has to be considered a country before it can be considered a location? If you can not get your head around that then I cannot help you. The DR offers an unbiased 3rd opinion, so I do not see how the proposal could be rejected. Every man and his dog can see that including NI in the location field helps the article. The edit I made reflects the content of the article, infobox and map. Why are you so against accuracy, and clarity in the article?Gravyring (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you not going to answer the questions? Bjmullan (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have. Hackney made edit to cause disruption as they highlighted in their comment scuppers any "consistency" argument. Hardly a worthy reason for an edit and made without consensus. Why did you not revert Hackney's edit? The location field does not require the entry of a country or sovereign state, just the location. Can you explain why you think Northern Ireland has to be considered a country before it can be considered a location?Gravyring (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hate to tell this but that is NOT vandalism. Please see [this]. I will not be involving myself with this discussion any more unless something intelligent and relevant comes up. Night night. Bjmullan (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Bjmullan, your right, its not vandalism, only a disruptive edit. Can you answer my question. Why did you not revert Hackney's edit if there was no consensus for change? The location field does not require the entry of a country or sovereign state, just the location. Can you explain why you think Northern Ireland has to be considered a country before it can be considered a location?Gravyring (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a little research into this proposal. I've checked a number of pages using this template aswell as the associated template for lakes in Northern Ireland and the location seems to be populated with a reference to Northern Ireland in every case, or for better words, I have yet to see a case where Northern Ireland is not mentioned in the location. So there does not appear to he an obvious reason why Northern Ireland can not be used in this case. I think any objection based Northern Ireland's status can be ignored. And having looked at the dispute resolution case a user has objected to the removal of the pipe link, but reading this talk page, no suggestion of removing the pipe was made. Very strange objections. Hackneyhound (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello everyone, I just came to this thread via the closed DRN discussion. It looks like there might still be a few angles that you could debate here, but if it turns out that you really can't agree on a compromise, then I recommend starting an RfC here. Just give the background to the dispute in a neutral manner, then list the different options that people have suggested, and stick an {{rfc}} template at the top. Sorry for dropping by with this comment so suddenly, but I hope it's useful. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style/Ireland related articles

I found this policy that might be of some help here. It looks like it is quite acceptable and even required under Wiki policy to refer to "Northern Ireland" when referring to Northern Ireland, even when the borders discussed are formal states and not formal states.

"Use of Ireland and Republic of Ireland

Shortcut:

WP:IRE-IRL

Concerns have been expressed that using the word Ireland alone can mislead given that it refers to both the island of Ireland and the Irish state (which are not conterminous). A discussion process decided to leave the article on the island at Ireland and the article on the Irish state at Republic of Ireland until consensus changes.

A consensus emerged with respect to referring to the island and the state in other contexts:

When referring to places and settlements in the Republic of Ireland in the introduction to articles (and in elements such as info boxes), use Ireland not Ireland or Republic of Ireland (e.g. "Cork is a city in Ireland").

In other places prefer use of Ireland, except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland (e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland")..."

I am trying to understand the concerns here. I do not understand why, at the least, the border designation could not be "UK (Northern Ireland)", instead of just "UK". This places the area of discussion more specifically. From the policies I have seen, accuracy and understanding are the goal when creating an article as stated in this policy:

Wikipedia:Writing better articles "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully."Coaster92 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Carlingford Lough Location

Suggestion to change location to Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border from Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom borderGravyring (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to change what to what and from what?Curb Chain (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose change per WP:EGG Mo ainm~Talk 09:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The border is the Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border. The states on either side of it are (a) Ireland and (b) the United Kingdom. The proposal is like asking the Strasbourg article to say that is on the Franco-German border|Alsace-German border. --Red King (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. For all intensive purposes Northern Ireland is considered a country on wikipedia. This is irrelevant as Northern Ireland does not have to be a country, to be a location.

Reasons for change: 1. The content of the text already includes > forms part of the border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south. 2. Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are both mentioned in the Basin Countries field. 3. The picture shows the location of the lough on the map of Ireland, not a map of the british Isles. 4. The suggestion is more specific than the current field value. 5. Some examples of other pages using the same template as Carlingford Lough [4], [5], [6], [7]. These loughs are all in Northern Ireland, and all reference Northern Ireland in the Location field. Any argument that suggests that Northern Ireland can not be used in this field should be ignored. 6. Here is the page prior to years of edit warring and pov pushing [8] Gravyring (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support or use "Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)" Per WP:IRE-IRL use

Northern Ireland for clarity as demonstrated in this example given in the policy: "(e.g. "Strabane is at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland")..." Clarity is the specified policy of Wiki per Wikipedia:Writing better articles: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." "Northern Ireland" is more clear, more specific, more helpful to the reader than just "UK".Coaster92 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Coaster the section WP:IRE-IRL defines the usage of Ireland or the Republic of Ireland through wiki-links, pipelinks and general usage not the usage of Northern Ireland.Murry1975 (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article title, Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border, is fine as is; if people don't like the title I suggest they go to that article and get it changed there. If you want examples of where Northern Ireland is used in the text but UK is used in the infobox have a look at Giant's Causeway, I am sure more examples can be found. Bjmullan (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The Giant's Causeway uses the UNESCO template so is not really comparable in this case. Also I noted that on the Giants Causeway talk page there is a consensus to change the infobox to state:United Kingdom, location:county Antrim, Northern Ireland. This change was also supported by you Bjmullan.Hackneyhound (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with using Northern Ireland in the article but I am opposed to piping or changing the linked article name. Northern Ireland can't be used as the country/state in the UNESCO template because as far as UNESCO is concerned Northern Ireland is not a country, probably just another nationalist POV organisation (along with ISO, UN among others). Bjmullan (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You've changed your tune. Your previous objection to the change was that Northern Ireland can not be used in the location field as it is not a country. As for the UNESCO template, you are comparing eggs with bacon. UNESCO does not recognise its members by country but by the term "associate member" or "state party" and does not forcibly reflect geography. It refers to the execution of regional activities of the organisation. So your right Northern Ireland is not a country by UNESCO definition as it does not define country status. I guess by using your rationale, UK and ROI are not countries either by UNESCO definition.Hackneyhound (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear. I have no objection to using Northern Ireland in the body of the article but object to the piping or renaming of the Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border article which is used in the infobox. As you say, lets not mix our eggs/bacon - sovereign state/region. Bjmullan (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

,ok, thanks for clearing that up. Rather confusing as your objection appears to be quite fluid and ever changing. Perhaps in future select a template and wiki page to compare with that is relevant to the template being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackneyhound (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Infoboxs of Northern Ireland related articles regularly metion the UK. In this case the mention of the UK is wiki-linked to the relevant article. The location is part of the border between the UK and ROI, it is also part of the Louth-Down county border yet the editors who want more specific are not pushing for that. The border article is correctly titledand the points raised about its change of name or linking have been raised either here or there many an occassion. The pipelink suggested is not to a commonname even, the Irish border or the Border (called so on the island mainly). If it was pipelinking a commonname there might be some sense of change. Northern Ireland is mentioned in the infobox and the first sentence of the lead so why change a link to a non-commonname to show this?Murry1975 (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you define "common name"? The border is known by many as "NI - ROI border"

Hound any chance of you remembering to sign in? Between you and Gravy, what d'ya know. Odd the way when Gravy is nit here you are and vice-a-versa and the two of you are never around together, just went over your contribes, two SPA's obsesed with NI geography but based in the south-east of England. Mad coincidences, absolutely coincidence I believe. "Commonname" is a name a subect is , wait for it commonly known by. Its mad the way it is known by "NI-ROI border" and it doesnt get a look in on its article. So maybe you would like to help obtain balance?Murry1975 (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I only came to this page to check the template against the Lough Neagh page, but in future ill be sure to check with you first before contributing anywhere else. I've looked at your contributions and I use that term loosely, you seem to have a very narrow range not to dissimilar to other users on this page. I haven't been editing in a few days, well because its the wkd. Sorry! I'll be sure to cancel my social engagements. As for the topic, again your comment isn't clear. Are you saying that as the border is commonly known as "NI - ROI border" that it should be included in the article then? Great seems you are in agreement with the proposal.Hackneyhound (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And you forgot to indent. My did I hit a nerve. Paraphrasing a qoute to insist that someone agrees with you is uncivil, read it sometime as was suggested when you interfered with another editors comment. I see you edited the page on Lough Neagh with the comment "reverting spillover, thanks for the live link though", what spillover? It was there long before, so that too is giving the wrong idea abour your edit and that too is against guidelines. Here [9] an entry from 2007 which shows UK, would indicate the only spillover is your edit. WP:CIVIL and WP:IDHT would be great reads for yourself. Now keep it civil and to the point. Now why dont you want the correct link in? Why would you prefer a pipelink which contains info already in the infobox?Murry1975 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The suggested change is more specific than the current location value and is in keeping with other Northern Ireland related pages using this same template. Why are you against accuracy? My last post was perfectly civil so no idea why you keep quoting WP:CIV. My edits to Lough Neagh page were in keeping with NI related pages and were no different to the basin countries field of this page. Reverts to my edits were only made by users following me there from this discussion.Hackneyhound (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Just read over the above the penny might drop. Your edit to Lough Neagh was summarised wrong then aswell. I am not against accuracy, in my opinion the infobox is accurate and factual, what would be inaccurate is a pipelink to a name that isnt used in the artcile it directs to, as stated countless times. This [10] edit on Lough Neagh shows that your edit removed accurate information out of the box, and this one [11] out of the article. POV? Yes. And before you can say it [12] you had done it before. So dont go accusing editors of "following me there from this discussion", another piece of uncivility from you. You seem to care little for accuracy by your edits on that article or are going to quote it was a deadlink? Tag it as such. Or did you not read that guideline, here is the link.Murry1975 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The countless times this has been brought up is more than those tea drinking people in China. Wiki needs to be factual, accurate and written from a NPOV, Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border, is accurate, factual, nuetral and within all the relevant guidelines that I have read, but if I have missed any let me know.Murry1975 (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975, as a new user I can hardly be expected to know every item of wiki policy. When I noticed the dead link on the Lough Neagh page, I removed it and the information referenced. Not a POV edit. Stating the location as ROI-UK border is certainly more accurate than saying Western Europe, but can not be considered more accurate than stating the location as NI-ROI border. Stating the location as NI-ROI border is accurate, factual, neutral, within relevant guidelines, consistent with other pages using the template and ...written from a NPOV.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps then we should remove the pipelink altogether and just state location:Republic of Ireland - Northern Ireland border. A pipe link already exists in the opening of the article in [Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border|the border]. A pipe link that you were determined to keep.Gravyring (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's the most sensible solution. Why not set up a proposal to that effect and see what people think. Van Speijk (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to remove an article title from the infobox? It helps the reader understand more about the subject. The border does make sense in Ireland (and also the body of text) but in Sierra Vista it means something completely different. A solution perhaps, sensible I doubt... Bjmullan (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

As claims are being made of POV pushing when we have 2 editors here who are SPA's why not be factual and state the location as Ireland, unless the only POV pushing is to include Northern Ireland Mo ainm~Talk 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess Ireland could be used, but then so could the British Isles.Gravyring (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply. Links are used to help the reader and improve the article. Two editors who support the proposed change now seem to see the invalidity over thier point, yet wish to lessen the availbility of information available through the wiki-link by removing it. Editors how would this improve the article? A POV to remove factual information from the infobox isnt the way forward.Murry1975 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry1690, you seem to type the most cry tic of comments that no one actually understands what you oppose and support. Links are used to help the reader and improve the article but used in the incorrect context lead readers down another route.Gravyring (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Gravy be civil. Again. I have stated my opinion clearly. You should read it again. "used in the incorrect context lead readers down another route", what would be the incorrect root stating UK-ROI border, thats what it is. Everyone is entitled to there opinion Gravy, but there is only one set of facts.Murry1975 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As civil as you were here with this edit summary [[13]]. Who is Gravyboat? Your original point still doesn't make any sense. The content of the text already includes > forms part of the border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south. How is this acceptable yet Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border is not?Gravyring (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it exceptable, it doesnt use a phrase or link that is misleading or POV. Unlike yours.Murry1975 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How is the suggestion that the lough is on the border between NI and ROI POV? its not misleading and its not POV, only accurate and encyclopaedic. Gravyring (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of politeness could you indent correctly? It states it in the article. As I re-applied your POV edit of removing the link, remember? The wiki-link that you are wishing to pipelink is the topic of comment here, remember? And you have yet to explain my question above. Now why would pipelinking be good in this case while we have all the other information correctly positioned in the infobox? Does the infobox not mention NI? Does it not correctly link to the article on it? Does it not correctly link to the article on the border in question here? Please answer the previous question first before these ones, thank you.Murry1975 (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to answer your questions, given that I had left comments on your talk page that you simply deleted, so don't lecture me on politeness. Your comments dont really make sense still, how do you expect anyone Admin to understand them? POV edit? ohh you mean removing the the border pipelink. Explain to me then that if NI and ROI do not share an international border, why is it piped to a page regarding the border between 2 sovereign states. The change suggested is more accurate and would only enhance the article, i've outlined my reasons. Gravyring (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You dont have to answer questions? Read WP:CIVILITY. As for my talkpage when I request you only add certain material I am well within the guidelines to remove when you add what is outside of this. So please anwser away.Murry1975 (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

smells like hypocrisy. As i've said before your comments constructed with pigeon english are hard to understand. the points and questions i made on your talk page were legitimate, yet they were deleted - very politeGravyring (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Again WP:NPA and please read WP:CIVILITY. And please answer the questions I have asked you in this discussion.Murry1975 (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Gravyring, I am.not sure what your question is. Try avoiding the use of double negatives. Can you rephrase your questions please? As for your talkpage, if you treat people like crap, then why would anyone want to discuss anything with you. Just try and be civil for this discussion, the same goes for gravyring.Hackneyhound (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hound, that too is uncivil. But the again. I have asked several questions no answers forth coming and side stepping shows a lack of good faith. The comments above show lack of civility.Murry1975 (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975, its not side stepping. I read your comments and didn't understand them also. Start a clean slate. Can you outline your questions again please? And maybe also answer the questions that had been left on your talkpage?Hackneyhound (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so concerned about my talkpage Hound? You have never posted it on it. But please answer. The questions are above in plain English, I suggest if you cant read them dont edit English language Wiki. Thats not uncivil, it is required you have a level of competency while working on the project and one part of that is is the basic skills to interact like reading.Murry1975 (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The change is more specific than existing field value, is in line with other Northern Ireland related pages using the same template, reflects the content of the article opening and map, and predates years of edit warring and pov edits. If pipe [Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border¦the border] can exist in reference to NI and ROI then I see no reason why the suggested change can not be made.Hackneyhound (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Stating United Kingdom is technically accurate, but confusing - and actually very stupid. It's another example of the POV pushing to diminish the status of Northern Ireland; compare with the "Northern Ireland is not a country" argument. Van Speijk (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Van Speijk, I'm confused by your confusing statement. Maybe you could expand on why it's confusing? On the POV issue, you are surely not saying the international bodies such as the United Nations and the International Standards Organisation are POV pusher as neither of these organisations consider Northern Ireland to be a country... Bjmullan (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment.Van Speijk stick to the debate at hand please bud. You only have mentioned stating the UK is accurate but confusing, yet the article the wiki-link links to is titles with such. There would be a possibility maybe if a common name for the article was been used, again its not. This is a very narrow change which is being dealt with. Here are some related sections from the target articles talkpage that should be read;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_border#Title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_border#Title_again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_border#Requested_move_.28Jan_2009.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_border#The_Irish_border.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland%E2%80%93United_Kingdom_border#Requested_move

Stating a name that isnt either an official or commonname is most definitly POV.Murry1975 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support an alternative - It's not wrong and is more precise. Nowhere are we stating a border between soveriegn states - we are simply stating location. I don't see what is basically a straw poll is going to achieve as we already know there are a few editors who are steadfast in their position meaning there will be no consensus for a change. Though i would suggest an alternative: "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) border". Mabuska ^(talk) 00:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. If you feel this alternative can hold water, (which I doubt) I suggest you take in to the Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border talkpage. Bjmullan (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would this suggestion need to be taken to another page?Gravyring (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Suppport. Very sensible compromise. It gives clarity to the situation. Van Speijk (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • @ Van so you are striking your first support then? Mo ainm~Talk 15:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No. First supoort is my preference, but failing that, I support this compromise. Are you happy to compromise? Van Speijk (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is obviously a dead lock here. A compromise should be reached. Please suggest alternatives below? Although judging by past edits and discussions consensus does not appear to be needed we. should try and do this the correct way and find a compromise.Hackneyhound (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A few ideas 1. Republic of Ireland - United kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland border 2. Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) border 3. British Isles 4. Western Europe Option 1 had already been rejected by Mo aimn. And yes, these suggestions are not consistent with other NI related pages using this template but this page is riddled with POV. So pick an option or suggest another?Hackneyhound (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal per EGG. This is a sovereign state issue. But I also see merit in Mabuska's suggestion but in a different format: "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border (in Northern Ireland)". Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Laurel, this is not a sovereign state issue at all. EGG is as much a reason to support the edit as oppose. The template allows for the insertion of Northern Ireland in the location field, and does so in many other cases using the same template. Can you propose a compromise of your own?Hackneyhound (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Gravyring my proposal is a compromise mixing both into a workable solution. Though Bjmullan's suggestion of where to take it is irrelevant as we aren't discussion a page move here. Many links on Wikipedia are piped even if only slightly. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral To me, it would be more normal (and helpful) to describe Carlingford Lough as being on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, as the text currently does. For infoboxes, arguable, we use more "precise" but less "normal" phraseology, in which case "Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border" may be more appropriate.

I don't think WP:EGG really applies, because whether you call it the UK-ROI border, the NI-ROI border or the Irish border it's the same border.

I don't think any of these phrases imply that Northern Ireland is a "country", no more than saying that Ashford Castle is on the Mayo-Galway border implies that County Mayo or County Galway are countries. NI is a place, the ROI is a place and there is a defined border between them. --RA (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just looking for other examples, I see that Niagara Falls uses another approach. Are there any other similar examples that people can think of? --RA (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

RA, thanks for your comments. New suggestion: "Location: County Down, Northern Ireland & County Louth, Republic of Ireland" Hackneyhound (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The primary argument for the change seems to me to be that it is more precise. I don't think that holds up. There's only one border between the UK and the ROI, so its not like the change to NI/ROI will define a smaller section of the border. Looking at notability as a proxy for usefulness, I think having it as the UK/ROI border is more notable, as it shows it is on the border of two states, which are the highest governing bodies in the modern political system (give or take the EU). CMD (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem arrises with the common misconception that Ireland is one country rather than 2. So some may be confused. I think also given that the map is of Ireland and not the British isles may also lead to confusion.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Which problem is "the problem"? As for the map, it's not that good as it stands. It could use some labels, for example, "(Republic of) Ireland", "Northern Ireland (UK)". CMD (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had explained the problem already ie. The common misconception that Ireland(the island) 1 country. Wikipedia just keeps get more difficult.Hackneyhound (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You said the problem arose from that misconception, not that it is the misconception. Also, is the misconception "that Ireland is one country rather than 2" or "that Ireland is made up of 2 countries"? CMD (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

By your last comment you seemed confused aswell by the terminology.Hackneyhound (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. Hence the quotation marks. CMD (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok well do you understand my point now?212.183.128.5 (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes (assuming IP is HackneyHound), although you should not edit posts that have been replied to already. I don't see what that has to do with the point I made though. CMD (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well like you said Europe is more notable than the British Isles so perhaps we could use Western Europe. Howver I don't think noteriety should be the deciding factor. Certainly in other Northern Ireland related articles using this template, sovereign state is not used, Northern Ireland is. I think RA's suggestion is bang on, consistent with other pages, the cuurent map, and the infobox and text. Where as the current version represents years of edit warring and pov. Hackneyhound (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

RA's says using NI/RoI in the body of text (which it already does) and the more precise UK/RoI in the infobox (which it also does); we are therefore already going with RA's suggestion. BTW if you look at Niagara Falls it doesn't say Location: Ontario & United States of America which is what Hackneyhound is suggesting here. Also this is not an exclusive Northern Ireland related article and therefore you cannot compare with these articles. Bjmullan (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bjmullan, I am going to have to the your first answer which was that Northern Ireland cam not be used in the location field as it is nit a country. Any comment after that have been unsuccessful attempts to conceal your POV. I also believe it us uncivil to deliberately mislead other contributers by relaying a suggestion that I did nit make. Perhaps read WP:CIV. Canada and Northern Ireland are both common wealth countries so I believe the location value on the Niagara falls page can translate to the Carlingford Lough Page. Amended suggestion:

• Location: County Down, Northern Ireland, UK & County Louth, ROI.Hackneyhound (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Bjmullan is right, RA noted the current situation may be more appropriate, and threw around some ideas for thinking, but I don't see a particular suggestion from them. I didn't say anything about Europe, and I don't see how being in Europe affects its being on the border of two states. CMD (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned Europe in your first post.Hackneyhound (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. CMD (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

ok to be more precise, you mentioned 'EU'. There are as many for the change as against. A compromise should be found. I have made an amended suggestion. Do you agree with it or do you have an alternative? Hackneyhound (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you mean your bold statement just above, I can see how that could be justified due to the oddness of the UKs governing system. I think a wikilink to the border article would still be useful though. CMD (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the suggestion in bold. And I would be happy to keep the wiki link.Hackneyhound (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see how replacing Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border with County Down, Northern Ireland, UK & County Louth, Republic of Ireland in the infobox improves this article particular as when the reader clicked on the link it would take them to the Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border article. Now that really is an easter egg. Bjmullan (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That assessment is correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

please suggest an alternative that would suit all...Hackneyhound (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the suggestion though I would agree in part with Bjmullans comments that the pipe doesnt work. Could the pipe link be removed as it is already linked in the text? It does annoy me that for all those who oppose, few have made any other suggestions of compromise.Gravyring (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I honest don't see why a compromise is required, the link is to a non contentious article. If people think the article name should be changed then please take this discussion there. As for removing the link altogether I would be opposed as per comments made by RA above. I really do believe that Hackneyhound has not been able to suggest an appropriate solution to his perceived problem and this discussion and RfC should be brought to a close. Bjmullan (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Close. Move on. Nothing to see here. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no.consensus to keep the edit in the same way as there is no consensus to change hence why Alternatives have been suggested. This is the first time that an RFc has been used in this page despite the years of edit warring so it is only fair that an edit be made to keep everyone happy. Bjmullan, the linked page is not the issue so please stop referring to it. The issue is the the article would be better served to include NI in the location. Please try and suggest a NPOV alternative?Hackneyhound (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't you get it Hackneyhound Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border is the NPOV solution. You have had 84 edits at Wikipedia, 75 of them (89%) to do with this article. Close. Move on. No more comment from me. Bjmullan (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Bjmullan, I can edit where I choose. Please comment on content not users. As for this article, I'm not sure how an edit can be considered NPOV if it took years of edit warring to achieve. Your earlier objections highlighted your POV. You have yet to suggest an alternative so I am glad that above is your last comment. The article obviously benefits from including Northern Ireland, and there are as many to support as oppose although opposition based on WP:EGG are very weak. Very weak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackneyhound (talk • contribs) 07:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to use County Louth, Republic of Ireland, County Down, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom in the location field. Reading WP:CONSENSUS, external links can be removed if an agreement can not be met, so not sure consensus is needed to keep or remove the pipe. Either way, Bjmullan seems like the only user against compromise. Bj, please suggest an alternative or let the rest of us get on with contributing to this project.Gravyring (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: The place doesn't sit on the Border of Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland. So, really if you change it would be like saying that the location is on the other side, of the Country sitting on the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland's border which it isn't. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose or Support:

• Location: County Louth, Republic of Ireland & County Down, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

• Support Adds greater accuracy than saying that it lies somewhere along a 200 mile border. Also it is NPOV and acknowledges that the lough extends from Northern Ireland. Gravyring (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Move to close RfC

Could someone close the above RfC as the most vociferous supporters are in fact the same person and are indef blocked for socking along with the other new account who is also blocked for socking. Mo ainm~Talk 17:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes please close this. There is no consensus for any change to the stable version of this article. I wonder how long it will be before the next sock comes along? Bjmullan (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

From a quick look, it seems to be more than just the sock editors who were in favor of a change. If people don't object, I'm willing to go through the above discussion and put strikeouts through all the contributions from editors who are now blocked. (This would still allow their posts to be read). My action would not be the same as closing the RfC, but it might help the participants to see if there is still a valid discussion remaining. For best results, whoever closes this RfC should also look at the thread at Talk:Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border#Move to Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem with all the socks comments being struckout. And also on the proposed move talk page linked above by Ed. Mo ainm~Talk 10:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. Will hopefully highlight to people just how much disruption and time wasting they have caused us all. Bjmullan (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No! They are blocked, so what? They are not proved to be socks. Where's the precedent for striking comments of blocked users? Your suggestion has no merit whatsoever and is provocative. And Mo aim, you still didn't answer my question above about whether or not, like others, you are prepared to compromise. Van Speijk (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

They are indeed socks, and that is why they are blocked. Not only is one of them running socks, but they are also using the socks to avoid their indefinite ban from the project. Removing the post of banned users is the order of the day.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To back up your assertion please file an SPI. Van Speijk (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean compromise? As it stands it is factually correct. Mo ainm~Talk 16:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So are the alternatives bing proposed, but I'll take your continuing evasion as a 'no'. Van Speijk (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Strikeout of comments is not the same as removal. Per this, Gravyring and Hackneyhound are two accounts of the same person. Neetandtidy is a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MickMacNee. If later review clears the sock charges, then the comments can be unstruck. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I know. Their comments stand until they are proved to be socks, which so far they haven't been (I'm talking gravy and hackney). Why must you make a bad situation even worse by suggesting yet more provocative actions? Just leave it. For "per this.." read "guess". Van Speijk (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

30 days are up. Please close this. Bjmullan (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Notes to closing admin:

• Gravyring/Hackneyhound has been blocked indefinately for socking and as a "POV-pushing single purpose account, only here to stir up trouble". Mo ainm~Talk 11:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been fully protected for one week, per a request at WP:RFPP. Please use this time to reach consensus on the outstanding issues. After protection expires, any editors who don't seem interested in consensus may be subject to discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now that the page is protected, there is no incentive for discussion. Great work.Hackneyhound (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Insert link to island of Ireland in opening

Please can someone insert some actual context into the opening of this article - before going on about the border this and northern/republic that, it's surely more important to locate this article for readers as being on the island of Ireland first. Therefore, I request that "on the island of Ireland" be inserted between "is a glacial fjord or sea inlet" and "forms part of the border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south".

I appreciate that in these pathetic nationalistic wars where both sides fight for their preferred POV versions, the interests of non-Irish/British readers come very a distant second, but I was annoyed to see that this nonsense has led to a protection which stops me from just making such an obviously needed edit like this. Although that's not to say the admins are doing a decent job of handling this dispute either. I have an opinion on the actual content dispute above about what to put in the infobox, I could even cogently argue it from a position of fact and based on what serves the reader, but on the evidence of reading the above, I'm not kidding myself that it would be listened to, or be incorprated in the final solution. I find the suggestion from the protecting admin above that there has been any kind of actual Wikipedia type consensus building going on here before the protection, to be an insult to my intelligence, and want no part of such a farce. Both sides are clearly pushing a POV, but it appears one camp is winning the dispute because they're more established and know how to better evade and entrap their opponents in order to win the dispute as they participate in sham discussions. Judicious use of tag team edit warring/reverting due to 'no consensus' also helps. I believe this used to be called gaming the system or civil POV pushing, but either way it never used to be given the legitimacy of being called consensus building. But who knows, maybe things have changed since I last editted. so at this time, just the island edit will do please. Neetandtidy (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm closing this edit request with no action since the submitter, Neetandtidy, has been blocked per a complaint at SPI. If anyone else can figure out if there is a valid point buried within the above oration, please make a new request and it will be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)