Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. John Reaves 03:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

[edit]

This "task force" was created unilaterally, without any discussion or concensus anywhere. It appears to be a blatant case of WP:FORUMSHOP. The "task force" is unnecessary - any discussion of naming changes to Ireland or Republic of Ireland should take place either on those pages, or centrally at WP:IMOS. -- BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep unless a sensible alternative is suggested. The issue of the name of Ireland (the state) has been a contentious issue for years and flares up on a regular basis. There are multiple political positions and a NPOV resolution will be difficult. A task force would be the normal way to resolve this. The issue affects many pages and spills over into debates on terms such as British Isles. There is an increasingly need to attempt to resolve this issue outside the context of the usual editors on the usual pages which is getting no where. If there is another route than a taskforce which would be more effective then it should be proposed. However resolving the issue on the two pages referenced by Batsun has been proved not to work on several occassions. --Snowded TALK 10:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to suggest that moving the discussion to yet another page will achieve anything. "However resolving the issue on the two pages referenced by Batsun has been proved not to work on several occassions." == "We can't achieve consensus to move on those pages, so we'll try another." BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is not a vote. Please see WP:PERNOM. Waggers (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wont get into forum shopping discussions, it just seems to me that this can be done at IMOS without any problem.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous comments - its a forum shop. We cannot create pages just to discuss this issue every time someone disagrees with a recent outcome. Djegan (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "Please read this task force!! "Forum shopping" is the only argument offered against having it - but it isn't a case of that at all. It started with a proposal and those who didn't like it simply voted oppose. To inform people, I used this: "An Ireland disambiguation task force (WP:IDTF) has been created. It will: free up various Talk pages for their respective articles, avoid inner and cross article repetition, avoid debate-postponing moratoriums from needing to be placed, and can accommodate all aspects of the issue of disambiguating the word "Ireland"." It is getting a lot of support and attention, but those who done like the initial proposal (and happen to wish for the "status quo" regarding Irish articles), also deny the right to a task force, unfortunately. The task force covers issues that go beyond the inital proposal - a great deal of Ireland (island) related articles are confused at the moment (see this cross-usage table taskforce subpage). Generally, when the issue of disambiguation over the actual article names comes up in one of the main articles (and completely dominates it), a 50/50 deadlock occurs from largely the same people to keep consensus - so "forum shopping" is not a fair accusation, surely. And the task force goes beyond simply moving main articles too - for the first time we can cover it all in one place (including the textual disambiguators, like piping "Ireland" to "ROI", that we having so many problems with). A huge amount of disruption to the main articles will be prevented from happening in the future - and right now too - as the current debates are dragging on - even though some are demanding that they be laid to rest. At this time in particular we clearly and simply need a task force."--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While per the nominator, if the sole remit of the "task force" is to formulate a move strategy, then - certainly - it is much more appropriately handled under the RM process. If however, its role is to restructure the IMOS guidelines to account for the disparity in styles/approaches to address the "island v state" DAB issue, then it should be kept. As a subset of the IMOS effort. It was generally agreed that - if the Republic of Ireland stayed as it was - we would need to possibly address the piping/naming/etc of related articles. As, right now, they are a mess. As Matt points out on the IDTF terms of reference, sometimes articles about the state use Republic of Ireland, sometimes Ireland, sometimes we pipe, sometimes we don't, sometimes we use euphemisms like "the state sometimes described as..." etc. We need to agree a general set of guidelines on when and where to do these things. Otherwise we'll keep having this crap. And - in the absense of an agreed approach and CON - assholes like Wikipéire will keep doing whatever they please. To the detriment of the project. So. We need to formulate a "DAB task force". Where the first remit is NOT to have another move vote. But to formulate a set of guidelines around when to use ROI, when to use Ireland, when to pipe, when to not, etc, etc. I don't care how we do that. We just need to do it. So - I propose we MERGE the IDTF to become a subset of the IMOS "page". Guliolopez (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now merged per above: The taskforce is now made a subset of the IMOS page. Guliolopez is right - in the absence of guidelines, sock-farmers like Wikipeire are doing what they want.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that people aren't happy with moratoriums and remits on votes any more - it was past breaking point, so the talk force had to happen. Nothing was getting done on all the problems that the current solution is creating. Also - I needed and wanted to propose a new poll somewere, and I just couldn't use the ROI talk page again (adding - due to it being overloaded, like IMOS talk etc). A taskforce on the issus is the perfect place to do it, whether it works or not. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Gulio, the issue of the name is the problem; the piping etc is a result of the unsustainable imposition of a politically motivated name on the country of Ireland. We must deal with the problem, not tinker with the symptoms.Sarah777 (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that's asking too much of any process Sarah. That's asking us to solve real world problems in the Wiki space. The "cause" here is not that the article on the state is at Republic of Ireland. The "cause" of the problem is in the real world. And is that the state and island share the same label. The resultant symptoms exist here. Because you can't have two articles with the same file name. We can't change the real world. We can only change the wiki. And the wiki symptoms therefore are the only thing we can address. Anyone who thinks we can use Wikipedia to solve the real world problem that the island is split, but the jurisdictional labels aren't, is clearly deluding themselves. So lets deal with what we can deal with - instead of going back to square one again. If we go back to square one again, then I for one am not going to help. Because it's a waste of energy trying to move the mountain by writing another essay on it. Guliolopez (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: on a point of information only, is this page actually merged as stated? I`t still looks like a standalone to me. Scolaire (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been called a "a workgroup of the [[WP:IMPS|Ireland Manual of Style]". A subpage of IMOS redirects to the current taskforce page (although a proper move could be made if insisted upon). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just want to make it absolutely clear that the multi-option proposal the kicked-off the taskforce is a proposal that has not been made before (even with the multi options). It is NOT forum shopping on any previous proposal, and it is NOT essential to the taskforce's creation, which was simply needed, opening proposal or no opening proposal. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this page is required as the unsustainable situation regarding the article about country of Ireland is being maintained by a group of editors against all common sense, Wiki naming policies, WP:NPOV, the practice in all other encyclopedias and the interests of the project itself. Sarah777 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unnecessary and achieves nothing that discussion on wp:imos or wp:ireland won't. Valenciano (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is important that no one group can take ownership of this taskforce. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This so-called task force totally fails most criteria and guidelines of WP:TASKFORCE.
  • It is not "a non-independent subgroup of a larger WikiProject".
- It is a subgroup of all articles that deal with the Ireland disambiguation issue. It was important that it wasn't 'owned' by any one party. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It is called a "a workgroup of the [[WP:IMPS|Ireland Manual of Style]". A subpage of IMOS redirects to the current taskforce page (although a proper move could be made if insisted upon). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not "rely on the parent project to provide as much of the procedural and technical infrastructure as possible".
- It addresses WP:IMOS. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not "focus primarily on direct article-writing activity".
- Yes it does. See especially, Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force/cross-usage table --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC) (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has not been "set up on a subpage of the parent project page".
- It doesn't have to be. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a blatant attempt at Forum shopping to try to overturn the status quo, where no consensus to change has been reached, and where the promoters of change are not getting the result they want. ww2censor (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have copied and pasted the above in at least three places, after saying what you have about "forum shopping"! Why not let people read it all and make up their own minds? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition as a substitute for rationality perhaps? Sarah777 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, please comment only on the merits of the actual deletion discussion not the people posting, how or where they post. The reasons are very rational. You know better than that. ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If this 'project' came about as a result of genuine discussion and consensus of the need for an independent discussion forum, then it just might be a good idea. Instead it is the result of a small number of editors failing to generate any consensus around their particular POV and going forum shopping when they don't get their own way. The moral of the story is "Discuss. Negotiate. Compromise. Consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispness (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 September 2008
  • Merge into WT:IMOS. This page is clearly meant to host a discussion about the names that should be used on Ireland-related articles; therefore, it should be part of the talk page of the Ireland manual of style. If there's significant opposition to merging it back there, that only suggests the 'forum shopping' accusations are true and it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) and delete task force. Setting up to competing systems that can result in two valid, opposing consensuses will not resolve these issues. For there to be efforts made towards a resolution on these issues, Ireland-related article Manual of Style discussion need to be in a single location. Manual of Style is the place for this, not a task force. -- Suntag ☼ 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By merge, I mean move and preserve the constructive information. By delete, my purpose is to prevent more than one location for discussion and to end the effort as a task force. I'm fine with moving the page to be a discussion subpage of IMOS. It appears there has not been proper consensus to act on the resolutions at Ireland disambiguation task force, so it should be disbanded as a task force and all future consensus to act need to come from discussion on Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). -- Suntag ☼ 02:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no 'resolutons' for the taskforce - it simply kicked off with a proposal, and it was only 'opened' yesterday! IMOS was overloaded with polling on the subject recently (it never stays in one talk with Ireland, as there is so much of it, and pages need space to breathe inbetween!). The taskforce needs to be given a chance. If the proposal fails, so be it - it shouldn't effect the taskforce. The taskforce is for ironing things out without the endless repetition and cross-talk page movement - not for one single short lived proposal. I can easily make it a sub of IMOS, and will do so now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Merging: What does merging entail? If it is making it a subpage of IMOS as a task force I am happy to do that - it can't be lost in a talk though - it even has a subpage of its own (see here). This is a genuine taskforce - some people are complaining about the poll in it. Regarding the accusations of "forum shopping" - I'll need people who judge here to read the taskforce and follow the background - please! A lot of work has gone into this.. The actual proposal (which some people are calling "shopping" after actually voting in the proposal) is only the opening part of the Taskforce! And this particular proposal has not been proposed before either. People are saying it is "forum shopping" as there has recently been a 50/50 deadlock over another proposal at Republic of Ireland's talk, and some people want no change on the naming issue at all. The accusations are to to be expected given this topic, and this MfD page could end up around 50/50 in line with the previous proposals. BUT I MUST STRESS (IE IN BOLD) THAT THIS IS A GENUINE TASK FORCE! It has several much needed uses beyond the endless polling, and it keeps the polls from constantly distubing other places too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • More comments especially re: merge suggestions: Editors suggesting a merge should be aware there has been seven weeks of extensive discussion on the Ireland manual of style talk page (and elsewhere), which is where they suggest merging this to, and no consensus was reached after all that time which appears to be the reason this task force was started.
    • This task force is absolutely not for the creation of constructive Irish articles and that is what we should be concentrating on but I get the distinct impression that Matt appears to own this task force and the subpage (btw, he created that too), especially when he has to defend virtually every single comment he does not agree with or which criticizes his viewpoint. Then he makes comments such as “I'll need people ... ” and “I needed and wanted to propose a new poll somewhere, and I just couldn't use the ROI talk page again”. Why is this necessary? Clearly this is because no consensus could be achieved that concurred with his views so he started the task force as a forum shopping expedition. The deletion discussion should be able to stand it its own right, but Matt constantly has to attempt to sway editors. ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have quoted me out of context. Why are the handful of people who so desperately don't want this taskforce to happen, acting like you are doing now? I said I couldn't go to ROI again because it was so overloaded with debate and polling on this matter that it was effecting the article. I also wish for the taskforce to bring people who have turned away to come back into the debate - what's wrong with that?--Matt Lewis (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite Matt's insistence this is a genuine Task Force, there is absolutely no focus on article writing activity, none. No matter Matt’s contradiction, the main construct of this task force is "Forum shopping" to get some name changes, pipes and/or dabs within Irish articles that HE wants and could not get at the appropriate talk pages after 7 weeks. Sorry Matt, but I have to clarify your comments for other users - this is a discussion of the deletion, so please stick to that. ww2censor (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's only just started! I opened it with a proposal that may well fail - so what? It has to start somewhere. I compiled a large amount of data to work on and have had virtually no thanks for it - mainly just personal attacks, frankly. The sad thing is that so many people have run away from this issue, that a small group of people could get this deleted. As for the focus on writing - I've given lots of suggestion for disambiguating!! In fact I've given 110% - I simply couldn't have started it off with more!--Matt Lewis (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you agree that you expressed slightly different opinions elsewhere? Crispness (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that my head is spinning. Hoping I don't come down with the ailment that hit Papa Smurf; the worry warts. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those links are over different matters, GoodDay - I first assumed myself you had actually changed your mind! I hope people are following the clear tactics in here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- it is all well and good saying "merge" but is this realistic given that a number of editors (including myself) consider this whole issue a forum shop to start with. This issue has been discussed to death previously, a poll only closed in the last month, after intensive talks. This project is the unwanted child, of whom the parents are now subject of a forced marriage. Djegan (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unwanted by you and a few very loud people who are actually debating in it, and have even voted in a proposal in it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAll it can do is good. There's certainly no harm in editors wanting to improve things.213.202.186.253 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe votes on naming of articles could have a deadline date which allows those who may not know of this "forum shopping"/under-advertised page to get involved. November 1 perhaps? Bogger (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteComment A task-force is a subset of a Wikipedia project designed for topics with are too small for their own Wikipedia projects. They are for article improvement drives. WP:IMOS is not a Wikipedia project. It's a style guide and discussions on changing it can be held on its talk page. Moreover, what the task-force's name suggests is that it's for discussing changes to WP:IMOS and more specifically when we should pipe-link [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] and when not to. This would be a worthwhile discussion but actual content of the page just talk about renaming the Republic of Ireland article and associated articles. This is a discussion which belongs on the Republic of Ireland talk page and not elsewhere. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I once offered to mediate this very same issue in an ill-fated attempt at the mediation cabal, and I just kept the talk page on my list for entertainment. I'm completely neutral as to the underlying dispute, I won't touch this topic directly again. I'll quickly wanted to give a short notice to the uninitiated here: The "problem" is mainly how to name the article. This is highly politically and emotionally loaded for some editors on both sides. The topic has been discussed excessively in the past, in different places. No consensus on any position has ever been reached; and it's my personal opinion that no consensus will ever be reached. In the absence of consensus, since the article must have a name, the status quo has been retained. It seems a good idea move this discussion away from the talk page, so that not 90% of it are devoted to discussing the article name. However I seriously doubt that this "task force" will have any tangible outcome. Averell (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment on merge: a task force on article naming is not a bad idea in principle, and keeping it as a subpage of IMOS or ROI is far preferable to continuing the seemingly interminable debate on the main talk pages. But the page should be archived until (1) proper terms of reference are set by consensus at IMOS or ROI, (2) membership is expanded to include a broad range of opinion, and (3) there is a solemn commitment by all members not to resort to name-calling or to allegations of political POV or attempted railroading. Additionally, there should be a clear statement of the case for each side (of more than two!), without comments from others, before any proposals are brought forward, since any proposal, to be workable, has to be based on an understanding of other people's positions. Under those circumstances I would support a merge with a temporary freeze. Scolaire (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This taskforce is already merged as a workgroup of the Ireland MOS. What position isn't explained at the taskforce? Only one person has complained that part of the principle text was too biased one way - and this was immediately worked out. IMO, demanding a restructure is a disrupting tactic to delete what we have - there is nothing wrong with the structure or wording of this taskforce. It was very carefully worked out. People from all sides have carried on debating under in this taskforce, but only that one person (and the opposite side of the table to you), has complained of the principle text. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When, Where was this merger as a work"group" agreed? Sorry Matt this is your personal hobbyhorse, nothing more, nothing less. Djegan (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simple move (per suggestions in this AfD) in the clear spirit of the taskforce - which is about the "Ireland" (as a word) disambiguity issue, clearly an area of IMOS. The taskforce referred to and referenced IMOS from the outset! This protest is about a small group of editors kicking a fuss at every oportunity they can. You keep personalising it as "Matt Lewis' taskforce", as I got it going (with support) - but it is supported by a great many people. All the arguments I encounter against it seem to include my name and little else! I may be doing the main work defending it in this AfD (an unfortunate but necessary task), but the taskforce is not about me at all, and it has clearly taken off too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a textbook case of forum-shopping. There are basically two views on the debate about the use of "Ireland" to refer to the island or to the state, and despite all the words written in debates they can be summarised quite simply. One side argues that because the state and the island do not cover the same territorial area, disambiguation is needed and that the simplest and most widely recognised form of disambiguation is to use the legal description of "Republic of Ireland" as the title of the article on the state. The opposing view is that since "Republic of Ireland" is in a law a description rather than a title, the legal title should be used. Both arguments have their merits (though I take the RoI side of the debate), but debates are not helped by persistent allegations of political motivation.
    The crucial point, though, is that in umpteen debates at Talk:Republic of Ireland, there has never been a consensus for a move, and reopening the debates in another forum only wastes everyone's time. It is particularly notable that this "task force" was set up within days of the closing of the latest requested move as "no consensus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was proposed during the debate/polling not after it - it just took a while to come. I'm getting extremely upset about the lack of AGF here by some people. THIS IS NOT FORUM SHOPPING. The taskforce and the poll it starts with ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. the poll is MULTICHOICE and has not been used beofre. You can simply vote "oppose"!!!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as multi-choice is concerned, it kind of has it kind of has. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and have you ever considered the novel idea of finding a way forward which does not involve TOI (which incidentally is not a legal description)? This task force allows for discussion of different options that might allow a way forward. Incidentally the prior discussion was still active, some editors were saying "non consensus" but it was not closed --Snowded TALK 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "not a legal description"?! The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, says it is. I think I'll take our Irish legislation over the opinion of a Welshman on this, however well intentioned. No offense. "Be it enacted by the Oireachtas as follows:- (2) It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland." BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it was predictable that you would go back to 1948, please reference countless previous comments from other editors on this, the various disputes between the Irish and UK government on the use of ROI as a name, the resolution in the GFA. Can't you see Bastun that you are perpetuating a now resolved conflict with this insistence? --Snowded TALK 17:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "conflict" you keep referring to on different pages? A wikipedia conflict? You infer that Bastun is living in the past, but I suspect it is you living in an alternate reality. Djegan (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of ROI instead of Ireland had been a long running dispute between the UK and Irish Governments until the GFA. Basic history Djegan. Some opposition to the GFA was to perpetuate the old language, just as some on the other side object to the removal of the claim to the Northern Ireland from the Irish constitution. Regrettably I think Bastun while clearly living in the present, is allowing a past conflict to rumble on in the WIkipedia when other enclyopedias and all governments and international bodies have moved on. European Union documents specifically forbid the use of ROI. --Snowded TALK 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict? Dispute? -- even I am getting confused here. But on the British side it was terms like "Ireland" that caused discomfort, whilst on the Irish side it was terms like "Eire", "Free State", "Irish Republic", "Southern Ireland" that caused discomfort. Fact the Republic of Ireland was a creation of the Irish parliament, who were duly elected by the Irish people. Djegan (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a long running and substantial dispute Djegan. Fact, the Irish Government strongly objected to the UK Government calling it the Republic of Ireland. Fact the UK agreed to cease such use post GFA. Fact the EU advises against the use of ROI. That is the simple, citable reason for saying that insistance on ROI is to perpetuate now resolved conflicts. --Snowded TALK 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your blowing this British/Irish naming dispute out of all proportion (but no doubt you will come back saying otherwise). Terrorists were not blowing up people and shooting people because of the names of things. People did not march on the streets because of the names of things. You can be sure that discussions about names were not central issues in the GFA. Reality check please. Djegan (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blowing it up Djegan, and I'm not linking it to terrorism per se. However names are symbols and the GFA agreement was significant. I think we should conform with current reality and agreement as well as general practice. This is really a very simple issue. Using a name which conforms with facts, disambiguating island from state and moving on. Insistence on ROI is preventing that. --Snowded TALK 18:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait now, hold on here. Your the one using loaded terms like "conflict" and "dispute", not me. I am not "insisting" on Republic of Ireland, I just do not see a viable alternative. Djegan (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am using conflict, but I didn't talk about Terrorists blowing people up on the streets! However I think we are now starting (I hope) to move forward. I think a concerted effort to find an alternative by all editors, ideally with a prior agreement that Ireland must not imply ownership of Northern Ireland and ROI should not be used? If we started there we might all get somewhere. --Snowded TALK 18:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep "No consensus to change" is not good enough given the fact that there is an equally strong "No consensus to keep". This task force is a sensible way to find and achieve a solution with a consensus to keep. Hopefully it'll even work.... --HighKing (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pity the poor admin who's going to have to try and sort this out, so I think I'll try and help him (or her) a bit. Whatever happens here it doesn't look like we debate will quieten down any time soon so here's what I now propose:

That is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion based on facts, moderated by a neutral would be welcome anywhere --Snowded TALK 17:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the best suggestion of of alternate place for this discusssion to take place if not on either the IMOS or Republic of Ireland talk pages. A Task Force or workgroup is far less satisfactory. ww2censor (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I for one am happy to support mediation (and abide by the result) --Snowded TALK 20:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep unless a sensible alternative is suggested. Consensus isn't needed to create a WikiProject, is consensus needed to create a task force? Anyway, I admire the work the participants are doing. By all means, they aren't doing any harm. --Cameron* 17:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Unfortunately, this sort of thing does a lot of harm, by dragging the efforts of editors into revisiting the same old questions yet again; that's a huge waste of the time and energy of people who could otherwise be working on creating content. There are huge holes in Wikipedia's coverage of Ireland, and dragging everyone back into the irresolvable question of the name takes energy which could be used to fill some of those gaps.
      Since successive debates at Talk:RoI have ended in no consenus, that defaults to the status quo, which is to use "ROI" as the name of the state ... and there might be a case for a wider discussion on how to name categories etc to ensure consistency with that usage. However, that's not what has been proposed with this task force: after a summary of th current situation, the first substantive discussion on that page is a section headed "non-forking proposal" which reopens the ROI naming question.
      That's why this task orce is being called forum-shopping: because it is reopening the question of how to name the "Republic of Ireland" article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That lacks logic. The subject has come up again and again for six years, distracting people from developing the articles and we all know it will come up again. That argues for an attempt to resolve it and not use "status quo" as a weapon to support a name which is not the real name of the country and which is not used by any international body. --Snowded TALK 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, I am not going to bite on your attempt to turn this page into a debate on the substantive question (I think your description grossly oversimplifies the situation, but that's a debate for elsewhere). My main concern is that you are confusing "lacks logic" with "does not accord with my position"; please have the good faith to accept that those who disagree with you also hold a logical position.
My concern here is very simple, not to keep coming back to this subject every six months (or find it occurring and being fought by proxy on other pages in between times. That means finding a way to deal with it now, not using the status quo to set up yet further debates. Hence my prior suggestions for mediation, discussion of principles etc. etc. In particular I think if we started a discussion in which the use of ROI and Ireland were off the table by agreement as being too controversial. We could then attempt to explore other options. If you were offended by my use of "logic" then I am sorry, it was mild compared with some of the other comments that fly around here and was linked to my strong opinion that we should resolve this now rather than put things off. To say that something lacks logic with a reason may or may not be a poor argument but it does not represent any assumption of a lack of good faith. --Snowded TALK 06:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the subject will come up again, but not immediately. There is a huge difference between a debate which reopens every six months or so (as at present), and having a continuous debate. Objecting to re-opening the renaming proposal just after a similar debate has closed is not "using the status quo" as a weapon, it is applying the widespread principle that it is unproductive for any project to continually revisit the same proposal. It may come up again, but it does npot have to come up again now'. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do regret starting it with the proposal (I wish I'd waited a bit). But what can I do now? - it's done. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I was piddling around with a sockpuppet at the time and had the proposal on my mind for a while - I was anxious to get it out (and keep things moving) before the moratorium rubbish came into play when so many were still frustrated and wound up. It is of course your own opinion to say the naming debate is "irresolvable"! I fully respect that you are not interested in debating it any more (and have probably had your fill) - but others clearly are. And the usage table has to be worth the taskforce alone: the piping issue, and what is and isn't Ireland (simply as we stand) is a problem in itself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I'm not the only person fed up with this debate, but I do still have an interest in the outcome. There's a very simple reason for not re-opening the debate: it's that consensus is not formed by attrition. Consensus requires reaching agreement, not grinding down your opponents until they go away so that you can say "others are still interested in debating it". (I'm sure that your intention was not to follow an attrition strategy, but that's what this amounts to in effect. I have often seen how it applies in other contexts, one variant being to keep a meeting going all night until most participants have gone home or fallen asleep on their chairs. That situation often produces a decision, but because it's the result of an endurance test rather than of a meeting of minds, it's an unstable outcome).
If you regret regret starting with the proposal, why not simply withdraw it? I have posted to your talk page a suggestion for a very different approach to the issue, which I hope you might find helpful: it's designed to start by depolarising the issue, and I hope it helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The debate wasn't closed when this was first opened! With respect, I've seen all the rhetoric common to a "war of attrition" - and it has come from the poeple who immediately tried to close this taskforce down. Please don't get me started on that! I am not trying to 'game' anything here, and I've said I'm not at all happy with the suggestion that I am. This taskforce had prior support, even from an admin I took it to. Someone had actually already suggested a similar proposal to yours (which could really work - who knows?) - so this TF has borne fruit already.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm proposing is actually quite different to Scolaire's suggestion. Scolaire suggsted a difft way of assessing article titles, but my proposal is to step right back from any mention of article titles, and to clarify what principles people want to apply to this issue, with no discussion of any article titles until there is a clear summary of the issues which reflects all the stated positions.
I do accept your explanation that you were not trying an attrition strategy. But please do understand that for those who have been through umpteen proposals of "let's rename this article to X", a series of more proposals amounts to attrition, and the quick move to proposals is what defined the task force when this MFD was opened. I'm not claiming malice or bad faith on your part, but most of the objections to the taskforce are based on the unfortunate fact that with your multichoice proposal, it amounted to another episode of the same process of having a proposal for change tabled as often as possible, and that's the attrition (or forum-shopping). Those seeking change have had ample chance to make their case, and continuing to press it is amounts to attrition. I don't think it's a sensible use of words to describe the "please stop tabling proposals ad infinitum" requests as an attrition strategy; it's quite the opposite, a desire to call a break to hostilities.
Instead, I hope that it might be possible for everyone involved to step back from their advocacy of particular titles and opposition to others, and instead to work together to try to clarify what people want to achieve. That way, I think we might understand each other a bit better, and hopefully get out of the dialogue of the deaf which has characterised the debates so far (they have at times exemplified the old adage that the internet is a write-only medium). I don't know if that greater understanding will lead us towards a consensus solution, but after several years of heated debate, it seems pretty clear to me that just continuing to advocate or defend a particular article title will not produce either a stable consensus or goodwill amongst editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And here's part of the problem. Matt creates the "taskforce". Matt decides the content of the main page (reverting when others make changes). Matt decides what the first proposal should be. Matt decides its now a subset of WP:IMOS. Matt decides the opening proposal is now on hold. There's a bit of a trend there. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's another reason why I think that the best approach would be to delete this taskforce, and thereby remove the current set of proposals. Putting Matt's proposals "on hold" is a bad idea, because if other discussions get anywhere in helping ppl change their perspectives, then we lose he value of any progress made by simply returning to a half-complete discussion from before.
Let's delete the task force, leave the proposals at Talk:ROI as closed, and instead sit down to see if we can clarify what principles everyone is bringing to this debate. By clarifying what people want to achieve and what they want to avoid, we will at least have a better understanding of the issues involved, and may develop more respect for the different viewpoints here. In the context of taht greater clarity, we may then find that there is a way forward to substantive proposals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That approach would work for me. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and me --Snowded TALK 10:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BHG's ideas (and however you may have read my proposals to Matt on his talk page they are very close to the way I was thinking), but "sit down" where? Starting what is bound to be a lengthy process on the IMOS or ROI talk page will only continue to overshadow other issues that need to be dealt with there. So why not keep the task force, formally move it to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force, blank the project page and agree format, terms of reference etc. on the talk page? Then there will be no half-complete discussion, but there will be a history - which never hurts - and an already-furnished room, which everybody is aware of, to have our discussion. Scolaire (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it'll help things along? then go ahead. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of BHG's proposal is that it starts with broad principles rather than specific proposals. There is a balance here between someone who is truly neutral (and therefore naive as to the issue) and someone aware of the issues, but therefore not fully neutral. By gut feel on this is that the latter is better than the former and BHG is prepared to act as a neutral facilitator of a process I would let her has her run of set up and location. Material here is not lost and can be used later in said process. --Snowded TALK 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm prepared to vote for a Move of this page to Wikipedia:IMOS/Ireland disambiguation task force per User:Scolaire, following BHG's proposals for moving forward. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BHG has wisely suggested a neutral party, and I agree with her. BHG has been very involved over the years, has a POV towards the current situation, and sits rather on the negative side towards the posibility of change too. From that element at very least, it is essential we have a neutral: the posibility of change must be met with total neutrality.
RE starting from scratch - I don't think I could watch all parties fight over presentation of this from scratch! It could take weeks if not months, and easily break down too. Currently it is very neutrally worded (which is not that easy to do) - and if any of it is objected to, that can easily be debated and changed, as has already been done in part. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout, somebody from the Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice hockey (myself excepted, of course)? GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Puck that for a game of soldiers!  ;-) Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who could be more neutral in political matters, then sports editors? GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MEDCAB - does anyone object if I ask here for a WP:UNINVOLVED admin to start this up? I have postponed the opening proposal (as an act of good faith), and the taskforce is now needing direction (although I am currently myself building the usage tables). We all seem to agree that we need to start with some kind of individual opinion-giving session. My preference is for us to work out questions between us, and each of us answer them. It seems we need a neutral admin to start this up, as whatever we chose to do, we need someone we can all answer to and have no personal problems following. Whereas certain polls can demand participation and discussion, these kind of approaches can more easily be ignored without somebody neutral guiding the show. Please reply at Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force#WP:UNINVOLVED admin involvment (I've posted this there too). --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This would only be forum shopping if another such forum exists. It doesn't - discussions on this subject happen all over the place and it would be sensible to bring them all under one roof, so that there's a single place to discuss these issues and so that article talk pages aren't hijacked by the ongoing naming discussions. Whether or not it's a "task force" according to WP:TASKFORCE is immaterial - WP:IAR takes precedence and this central forum and style guide can only be good for Wikipedia. Waggers (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Ireland_disambiguation_task_force&oldid=1136087175"