Talk:Republic of Ireland

Archives

---

1. Archive 1
2. Archive 2
3. Archive 3
4. Archive 4
5. Archive 5
6. Archive 6
7. Archive 7

Name Mediation

After another debate on this issue (different talk page) the suggestion of mediation was made to finally end it. The request is at the top of the page. People who have discussed this issue before are included.WikipÉire ^♣ 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the other debate, on a different talk page, that decided mediation should take place and that you refer to? ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk: United Kingdom is the place you seek. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what's going on here now? Wikipéire starts a holy war on another article, and then opens a request for mediation with editors who were not involved in that debate, and on a topic ('move "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland"') which has had no overt discussion here for 4 or 5 weeks? Am I getting this right? Guliolopez (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. Should be interesting to watch at least. Narson (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, yawn. This topic has been discussed about every 6 months and no consensus has ever been reached to change the status quo, so User:Wikipéire keeps flogging the same dead horse until he drives away enough decent editors and gets his way. Drop it for once and for all. It's old hat and boring. Let me repeat that, it's boring. Mediation is unneeded and unwarranted, User talk:Wikipéire likely wants to just bring in more people who have little knowledge of the topic and can be convinced by his constant pushing. ww2censor (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally perfer Ireland (state) or Ireland (country). But, whatever's decided at Mediation? IMHO, should be respected for at least 12-months. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

ww2c is right. This is just flogging a dead horse, and there is no need for mediation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as no-one takes pictures of it, otherwise I think we fall afoul of the new British extreme porn laws. Narson (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reaction is just what I expected. You've always been against the move. Just because something has been there for a long time don't mean its right. I would have thought for WikiProject members getting the main country's name right would be important for an encyclopedia! Anyway we'll see what the mediation brings.WikipÉire ^♣ 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Me or BHG? I only just got brought into this...and there is no moral imperative in the wikipedia naming of the article and what is correct is a matter of perspective. Narson (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry not you. I was talking plurally to most of the other editors who have commented so far. Should have placed my comment better.WikipÉire ^♣ 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipéire, it's absolutely fine to believe that you are right, but what's not fine is that you don't seem to accept that other editors can legitimately disagree with you, and that repeatedly raising the same issue is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've volunteered to mediate this issue within the Mediation Cabal; however only if people from both camps want to go through with it - see my comments on the case page for a possible goal. I just mention it in case some of the involved editors don't watch the case page - I'll just keep it open for a while. Averell (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to try mediation here. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed the case. Only the "pro-move" camp supported the mediation, plus the original requester was banned permanently. Averell (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gay rights

Why has Ireland got a section on gay rights? I don't want to start an argument over gay rights but I don't see this on any other country article. Is this just a backlash of some sorts against the catholic church! Joe Deagan (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be because (as you note) historically Ireland was "culturally conservative" in that area, and it may be that some editors believe that including it highlights a cultural change in the outlook on some issues. Possibly. Personally I'm not sure it's an appropriate yardstick/measure for social trends or the change to a more "liberal" or open society. But then maybe it's as good as any other. With regard to "why Ireland and not elsewhere". I suppose - possibly - it's because some editors believe the polls show Irish society to be more tolerant/accepting/aware/balanced/whatever than others. Again, I couldn't say one way or the other whether it's any more appropriate to include in the Ireland article than elsewhere. Certainly the main UK article doesn't mention it. Even though LGBT partnerships do have full legal equality there - way more demonstrative of a "progressive" outlook than a simple poll. Anyway. I don't see any reason to take it out. Unless it grows into something more extensive. At which point it should be moved to LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland. Guliolopez (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New City And Towns Template

I see a new template has been added to the article listing Ireland's towns and cities by population by user:Drog lad. This brings the little known and slow moving Drogheda/Dundalk population dispute to the the main Ireland article. I didn't bother much when it was confined to Dundalk and Drogheda (see also asociated talk pages), but now that it's spilled over I'd like people to take a look at this alarming grave minor dispute. Fribbler (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even need this templatecruft when there ia a perfectly good list List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2006 Census Records available instead of taking up so much space and adding more code to an already large page which is 92kb long? We should actually be reducing the page size not increasing it. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey relax i was just fowolling the list of 100 Largest Towns in IrelandDrogLad 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

The table below I have removed from the article as it is hopelessly confused; some of the stats refer to counties, some to towns and the Dublin figure is was the figure for the GDA which actually includes many of the others on the list (eg Tallaght). And Dundalk seems to have gone missing. Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Template:Infobox largest cities

I think Drogheda was given Dundalk's population figure? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it. Surely we need to keep the Dundalk v. Drogheda issue out of here? Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on several counts. The table is vague in it's definitions of town/city boundaries - In some cases it includes the exact town or city boundaries. And in other cases takes "urban area" or "town + environs" numbers. As a result, its accuracy is a little uncertain, and it therefore has very limited value. Similarly, because of this "vagueness" it brings the (sometimes troublesome) question of "which town is bigger" into a new and unnecessary forum. And finally, there is no need for this type of table in this article. We already have lists such as List of towns in the Republic of Ireland/2006 Census Records. The main country article doesn't benefit from having this data hashed up and dumped here. (No matter how prettily packaged). Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of Border article

At Talk:Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border, I have proposed that the name be changed to comply with diplomatic protocol. Please comment. --Red King (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) 24.20.169.126 (talk) what with the polls mentioned, where most north protestants feel British, and only a very small minority (3%) actually considering themselves Irish, I would have to agree, this seems the most appropriate. if you think about it, arguments about calling it "Republic of Ireland" vs. "Ireland" are simply mimicking the great argument between north and south. Calling it "Ireland" would be speaking to the geography of the land, while "Republic of Ireland" would be speaking to the political boundaries of Southern Ireland.

I agree with Red King regarding this, because it discusses the politics of the Island & the politics of Britain. What better title than one that defines the politics?

-Crystal Sage 24.20.169.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Title of Wiki page incorrect

The title of the Wiki page should be "Ireland" - as explained in the main article. The title "Republic of Ireland" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmacmanus (talk • contribs) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Garda

There should be a section on the above topic. ZoofanNZ (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

A hatnote has been added to List of basic Republic of Ireland topics, the work on just one editor: The Transhumanist. I don't think the new hatnote to a list deserves any greater prominence than any other list already in the current "See also" section. Is this an attempts to replace the much older and much more comprehensive List of Ireland-related topics that has been around since early 2004 and if anything that should be the hatnote? Besides which, we certainly don't need both, essentially duplicate, lists. Any other opinions? ww2censor (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You summarized the List of Ireland-related topics well: it is more comprehensive. The List of basic Ireland topics on the other hand is intended to be a general overview of the subject, much like the main article Republic of Ireland, but focused on links instead of prose. Unlike the more comprehensive list, it is intended to be an outline and is less index-like because of its scope (its scope is limited, whereas the related-topics list is not and has the potential to grow much much larger - see the Japan example below). Another difference is that the basic list is a member of a set of such lists (one for every country of the world) currently under construction. They are coming along nicely, and share a common format. See the rest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics#Basic topics lists for countries).

The two lists in the set that are the most complete are List of basic France topics and List of basic Japan topics (notice the format of the more comprehensive List of Japan-related topics). Please help to complete the List of basic Republic of Ireland topics to this high standard. Thank you. The Transhumanist    04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Transhumanist. You appear to have added this "hatnote" convention to several country articles, and in doing so have created a kind of new "standard" for country related lists, and a new standard for header formats for country articles. Did you discuss this anywhere before going ahead and making changes accross so many articles? Personally I'm with Ww2censor. I don't really see what value is added by these lists. Many articles already have navboxes, "main" style nav templates and other devices to link users to the relevant "sub-articles". I don't see the value in superceding all of those with your new format. Any nods to WP:CON before you did all this? Guliolopez (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no new standard. Yet. It's just a test run. Of the 200+ county articles, I only changed the hatnote on about 20. We should see if the links actually get used - if you don't object, that is. I plan to use the hit counter to check those list articles over the next few weeks, to see if their traffic goes up. For curiosity's sake, if nothing else. If the traffic doesn't go up, then the links are useless and should be removed. I haven't sought consensus yet, because there's no data yet to bring to a discussion. If you'd like to reduce the number of test links to 10, that would be fine with me, but I figured since there are 20 completed lists, we might as well run the test on all of those (more data that way, and a test group of only 10 seems kind of scant - 20 seems about right). I look foward to your thoughts and ideas. The Transhumanist    22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I don't see that there should be any preference to a list as a hatnote over and above the prominence given to any other link in the "see also" section, so I suggest moving it there, as there is no agreement to having a hatnote on the page. You can still observe its popularity from there. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I'm suggesting we move this article to Ireland (state). This move will move the article to

• the countries offical name and not a discription of the state
• the countries common name
• Will satisfy WP:DAB
• Remove the need to pipe link [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] Gnevin (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree it is the correct thing to do, we should wait on this discussion until more info comes to light from the IMOS discussion.Pureditor 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Of course it is sometimes called Ireland and sometimes Republic of Ireland, but why move it to an unnatural disambiguation when it's already located at its natural and the most common disambiguation name, the name just about everyone inside and outside of Ireland uses? Strange proposal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If this was was WP:DAB name it should be at Ireland (Republic) or Ireland (Republic of) per DAB .Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Which looks absolutely daft and in my opinion is disrespectful to the people and government of Ireland and that MUST be avoided at all costs.The Thunderer (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More silliness. Sigh. Djegan (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What's silly about it? As far as I can see one of the major issues here are people with very avid, fundamental views and that is leading to disrespect and lack of good faith. In my opinion we should remove that from any discussion.The Thunderer (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the proposal "it should be at Ireland (Republic) or Ireland (Republic of)" -- isn't that just another way of proposing Republic of Ireland? Especially given the use of capital R in republic? Djegan (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - there is no other option other than using simply Ireland as the title with Ireland (island) as the dab for the geographical entity. The argument that the common and legal and internationally recognised name of a country can't be used on Wiki because it carries "political connotations" is mind-boggling in its implications for the names of Wiki-articles well beyond these islands. (The first of which would be, thankfully, the end of the term "British Isles"). Sarah777 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's the current option and that's good enough.The Thunderer (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No - it is contrary to Wiki policy. Maybe we should rename "Israel" to "The Zionist Entity" because the name is political? Sarah777 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is similar disagreement over the name Israel. I fear that's not a good example. As you are aware though there are many who would prefer to see the ROI called something else and certainly YOU might agree that Northern Ireland is not properly named.The Thunderer (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of Israel as a comparative example shows a gross lack of perspective. Do people really feel as victimised over the the 'ROI' and 'British Isles' as terms, as third-class Muslims feel genuinely oppressed in areas of Israel (or even regarding the whole state-creation issue of Israel?) How vain, and how stupid! I initially have sympathy with the BI and ROI issues, but when I hear this kind of victim mentality, and see a prosperous and thriving Ireland (whatever it is called), and an Irish people who are welcomed wherever they choose live, work or visit, I get completely turned off. Is there anything worse than this kind of rabble-rousing extremism, when so few are interested? Talking about keeping pure resentment alive. Using Israel as a comparison is just dumb dumb dumb. (this was my first paragraph! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry - Israel is a simply wild comparision)

Ignoring the unsigned troll; Israel appears to be a rather good comparison - that is the Wiki name of the place. It adds

For other uses, see Israel (disambiguation).

But, and this is the key point, the state is called simply Israel. Sarah777 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the word "Ireland" better as the island, or as the state? I know a lot of people feel that geographical terms come first. As I'm not Irish, I'm personally on the fence.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop been stupid Republic of Ireland has been sanctioned by Irish parliament, it wasn't forced on anyone. Djegan (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning: please stop calling people "stupid" - that is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. Sarah777 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop wiki-fiddling by misrepresenting my comments. Djegan (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness I think the argument is that the name hasn't been sanctioned by the Dail. It has been provided as the description of the state.The Thunderer (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Or [1] Mediocre Britian , because claiming to be great is surely pov. When was ROI santioned by the dáil? And sure Article 4 outweighs any law Gnevin (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The term Great Britain is geographical and not political however and article 4 doesn't exist anymore.The Thunderer (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediocre britian was a joke , i understand its meaning. Article doesn't exist anymore ,thats news to me and the supreme court, have you told them you've removed it? [2]Gnevin (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be a joke but based on the "logic" being applied here if some politician used the phrase in the Commons it would be taken as "British Government policy"! Sarah777 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Would the words have to be after each other because I'm sure the phase it's be a mediocre year for britain has been said in the commons , maybe call the article mediocre .... britain :D Gnevin (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He he! To go with British (ahem) Isles ;)Sarah777 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree for all the reasons stated in the previous discussions this year already - sp. the silly season has arrived again this year! ww2censor (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely "silly" about trying to have my country called by its common, locally and internationally recognised legal name. Nothing. Sarah777 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, don't read what is not there. Did I say the idea of this discussion was silly? No, but the fact that this is the third time this year makes this the silly season. ww2censor (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Ww; I am actually livid this vote was called as I thought we had a workable solution. Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support per common-usage & to avoid pipelinking. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support per all the well established reasons above.Pureditor 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Must we go through this again? RoI is a dab invented by the Irish state, and passes WP:COMMON handily.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears we must TU - but don't blame me! The RoI/Pipe was a solution that was working fine until some absolutists decided to try and suppress it thus bringing this article back into play again. Sarah777 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Though not exactly the same thing: the Georgia situation was solved -Georgia (U.S. state), Georgia (country)-; why shouldn't the Irelands be solved easily. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not wishing to be trollish but you could argue that both Georgias are (were?!!) US states :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I agree Ireland is the official name but it is a misnomer. Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment So is Northern Ireland for that matter - what would you suggest for that Article? --HighKing (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sarah's reasoning above concurs with my own view. The names of many states are problematic, but it is not for a group of Wikipedia editors to manufacture some supposed compromise. As the name of the state is Ireland according to the constitution, and as it is so registered at the United Nations, no alternative should be seriously considered. RashersTierney (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support An encyclopedia does not makes points or play politics. The name of the state is "Ireland". --HighKing (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• The ambiguity is an issue for me. Our core policy WP:NAME states "Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.", WP:DAB states "For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available: 1. When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta), that should be used." Picking names on legislative grounds is not standard, see WP:OFFICIALNAMES. So given our policies and that I believe a new reader of en.wp is most likely to pick the longer form than guess correctly our bracketing disambiguation format, and that the long form is commonly enough elsewhere, I oppose. Knepflerle (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Although I am not wild about the alternative. ROI is no longer used and carries huge political baggage. Northern Ireland is now the undisputed official name (see amendments to the Irish Constitution) for what was contentiously called by some the Six Counties. Similarly Ireland is now Ireland in all official circles. It is not correct to argue that it is a misnomer, that is a POV Blue-Haired Lawyer --Snowded TALK 22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: You say "now" as if this is some new development? The UK may have become more ammenable to referring to the southern jurisdiction as Ireland since the British-Irish Agreement (addressing the president as the President of Ireland as so forth) but internationally Ireland has been Ireland since 1937. Republic of Ireland is no more out-dated now that it ever has been, it is still the official description of the state, and still the common way to differentiate the Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island (intra-Ireland-the-island terminology such as "all-island" aside).

The proposed change seems needly complicated to me, when a perfectly run-of-the-mill solution already exists. --78.152.197.185 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - RoI is the official description and a common name of the state properly called Ireland. The current solution is normal practice for disambiguating Ireland-the-island from Ireland-the-state. The current solution is clear - where the name is clearly stated to be Ireland, but the means to disambiguate Ireland-the-island from Ireland-the-state is intuitive and uses "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things" (WP:NAME). In reply to specific arguments put forward by the proposer:
  • "the countries offical name and not a discription of the state" - the official name of the country located at France is in fact the French Republic, Germany is officially the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom is officially the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Spain is the Kingdom of Spain, and so on and so on and so on ... As a rule of thumb, you can be certain that an article on a country on WP will NOT be located at the official name of that country - and with good reason. Ireland/Republic of Ireland is no different.
  • "the countries common name" - Since 1949, RoI is the common way to distinguish Ireland-the-state and the Ireland-the-island. Would you like us to go back to 1937-49, where we will have to use Éire to differentiate the two? Republic of Ireland, while it might not be the official name, is undoubtedly a very common name for the state if not the most common name.
  • "Will satisfy WP:DAB" - the current solution satisfies WP:DAB, and - more to the point - satisifes WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Republic of Ireland is perfectly easily recognizable, eliminates ambiguity and at the same time makes linking easy and second nature.
  • "Remove the need to pipe link [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]" - by requiring the need to pipe link [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]]!?

--78.152.197.185 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Interesting that you use the date 1949, which is the date of the UK act (although you pipelink to the correct 1948 act). Also, just to point out for your benefit, I have seen occasions where the opinions of anon IP addresses are not given weight in polls, although you do appear to have a firm grasp of the argument. Perhaps you merely forgot to log in? --HighKing (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there's usually 2 IP ranges (78.xxx.xxx & 86.xxx.xxx) that frequent these discussions. Yet, they choose not be registered users. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't get too excited, GoodDay. Those two ranges include thousands of people that happen to live in an area where people are likely to have an interest in Ireland. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948, operation from 1949. No confusion/error at all! Djegan (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Its better to just use the name of whatever act is being referred to, or to call it the 1948 act. Especially since the UK passed an act in 1949. Otherwise it is confusing - of course your mileage may vary. --HighKing (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but our anon editor was not wrong, but you were clearly implying s/he was. Djegan (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

HighKing - "Interesting that you use the date 1949" - per Djegan, 1949 was the year that the act came into force. Thanks for the heads up on IPs and weight, it's a choice to use an IP. I've already had the comments above struck out by the proposer because according to his I was "an obvious sockpuppet". --78.152.209.132 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support It's the name of the country and any opposition to the change is only for political reasons.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:78.152.209.132 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Could this be another sockpuppet as previously on this vote, in any case are anon votes counted? Djegan (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

They're usually ignored as the voting can easily be abused by ips so I don't see why we should do things any different. They should be discounted.Pureditor 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, yet again. The article name is a name of the state which is unambiguous. I don't see any reason to change this to any other variation. The name is provided by the Republic of Ireland Act of 1948. That the preferred official name of that state is "Ireland" is not in dispute. Ireland, however, is the name of an island - thus the need for the disambiguation when it comes to the state territory which claims the exact same name as that of the island: the two are not the same, despite the existence of a political desire for that to be the case. --Setanta747 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not the name of the state. I've asked above that folk stop suggesting that it is. Falsehoods should render a "vote" invalid. Sarah777 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose ROI is a perfectly adequate and unambiguous name, is in common usage and reads better in prose than Ireland (state). Would be less opposed, however, if "Republic of Ireland" (piped to "Ireland (state)") were to be accepted as the rule when referencing in other articles. Mooretwin (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Like you, I (and most editors) believe a Dab is required - but your suggestion doesn't makes sense for articles needing to Dab - in effect you're saying that "Ireland (state)" isn't an adequate Dab, or are you saying you just want article to continue to use the term "Republic of Ireland"? --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. See Haddocks' Eyes#Naming: The State's name is Ireland, but the State is called (by law) the Republic of Ireland. This is therefore the appropriate name for the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support It's pretty good. --HighKing (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

This RM is still only a few hours old, but it has already become bogged down with discussion. All further discussion should take place below here. I have been bold and moved all previous discussion, except discussion of actual votes, down here as well. Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment the Discussion at IMOS is going around in circles , this RM will either solve the naming issue or the pipe link issue , which will allow greater focus on the remaining issue Gnevin (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree -- "Ireland (state)" is not "the countries offical name and not a discription of the state" nor is it "the countries common name" as claimed. "Ireland (state)" is a wikipedia disambiguation whilst we have the perfectly official description Republic of Ireland. Djegan (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment [3][4][5][6], official description so lets move France to French_Fifth_RepublicGnevin (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - while Ireland is the official declared name of the state it carries a political connotation. It is better to use the official state description as provided for in Ireland's own Republic of Ireland Act 1949.The Thunderer (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment You need to be consistent Thunderer, if you want to go back to that act, then we need to also take that period's position on Northern Ireland/Six Counties. We need to move on from old disputes and be consistent. --Snowded TALK 22:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What political connotation seems like your WP:POV to me, care to prove it? Gnevin (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment how about you proving that "Ireland (state)" is "countries offical name and not a discription of the state" and "countries common name"? Djegan (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought it wasn't the countries common name as you claimed above is it now? Gnevin (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've always called it the Free State or the South. That's not out of disrespect, these are the names commonly used in the circles I grew up in - which were of mixed ethnicity.The Thunderer (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it has a political connotation. Please don't insult my intelligence or your own Gnevin by asking me to prove it. We'd be here for a year and still not come to agreement. That's what happens over everything with Ireland, north & south. I'm not here to change the world, I'm just espousing common sense. Djegan, I happen to agree that the country's name is Ireland and believe their own 1937 Act is sufficient proof. That's what I mean about argument however - we could still be at this in a year.The Thunderer (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the country or the state here; thats what confuses people. Nobody denies that "Ireland" is the name of the country (in the broad sense) - but the state is something different, even though it is also officially "Ireland". Using the same for country and state is a nonsense. The states official discription is "Republic of Ireland" - and using that makes good sense. Djegan (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

My contention is that we should be showing some kind of tolerance here and setting an example to all Irish people no matter what nationality they are.The Thunderer (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What a disaster this would be if passed -- Education in Ireland (state), Foreign policy of Ireland (state), Economy of Ireland (state), etc. Amateurish encyclopedia titles. Djegan (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree.The Thunderer (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between the state and the country? We do use Republic of Ireland when describing what kind of government the state of Ireland has. Just like the US is a federal republic. But it's blue and wet is a description of a thing named water not its name Gnevin (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is six counties - jaysus man surely you knew that?The Thunderer (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the difference between Island and State Gnevin (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem however. Using the name Ireland for the state implies that it IS the whole island, which is exactly what it's supposed to imply. Common sense must prevail.The Thunderer (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. No more that ROI implys that .Gnevin (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of the name Ireland was instituted for political reasons. There can be no denying that - sorry.The Thunderer (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor can it be denied it was the right of the nation to pick what ever name it wanted political or otherwise and the nation it's government and it constitution are the only offical sources of the name of the country and that name is clearly stated as Ireland ! Gnevin (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If that were true I would agree however the nation didn't pick the name as we all know. The Long Fella didn't give people choices like that.The Thunderer (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And that matters to wiki, why? Article 4 ,is my final word on this ! Gnevin (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: [7] [8] [9] [10] France is not a state which also shares the exact name as that of an island. Likewise with Israel. The term Great Britain doesn't refer to Britain as being "great" in the sense of being "good". It refers to comparative land mass or to a derivative population. --Setanta747 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments You know I do find this use of the 1948 act amusing, it has been seized on to perpetuate a term which (along with others) exemplify a conflict which we all hope is over. Whatever the intent in 1948 it came to be used symbolically thereafter.. The UK Government made a conscious choice to stop using it. This is not like France or the other examples. If the argument is for something which is unambiguous then Ireland (state) is exactly that requiring no further explanation. I can see no reason to retain ROI in the face of the facts, and an unambiguous alternative. --Snowded TALK 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, patent nonsense. The use of the words "Republic of Ireland" never had anything to do with the conflict, except maybe with fundamentalists with baseball bats, secret bunkers and semtex. Claims like that are unreasonable and cannot be backed up with facts. This is the sort of foolish claims that Matt Lewis was trying to draw attention to above. Headlines, with little fact. Djegan (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely the names disputes with Uk section of the names of the Irish state article would suggest otherwise?Pureditor 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Doesn't match my memory or experience Djegan and I'd support Pureeditor in suggesting you look at the reference he makes. I made the statement in good faith, please treat it as such. The facts actually show negotiations over the name being serious ones. --Snowded TALK 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you folks go into WP:AGF protected mode so easily? By the way, what facts? Lots of claims on this name/description negotiation. Any citations? Djegan (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I only go into WG:AGP when I see the sorts of comments above (in case you hadn't seen why I mean aggressive statements, accusations that other editors are being foolish). It really doesn't help things you know. In respect of citations you have been referred to another Wikipedia article which has a whole load of them. --Snowded TALK 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not many (relevant) references when I checked. Djegan (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the conflict and dispute been referred here one and the same thing? I think not. To claim otherwise would paint a poor and backward picture of Anglo-Irish relations. Djegan (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"You know I do find this use of the 1948 act amusing" - No great mystery. That is where the term "Republic of Ireland" originates. If it wasn't for that act we would be arguing whether the article should be located at Éire or Ireland, as was the common way to disambiguate Ireland-the-state from Ireland-the-island from the introduction of this confusion with the constitution of 1937 until the 1948 act introduced a new way to disambiguate the two (probably accidentally - the intention was probably to rename the state from "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland", but that would have required a referendum which in all likelihood could have failed with great embarrassment). --78.152.209.132 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Just wondering how other encyclopaedias have resolved this issue, not that Wikipedia should necessarily conform, but if there is an established pattern it might help take some of the heat out of this contentious issue.RashersTierney (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough Encarta and Britannica both have Ireland down for the state, with Ireland (island) for the island. With all the POV flying around from editors, I doubt the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia will ever be as good as those though. You never know, a NPOV might happpen and the article titles here might be the same.Pureditor 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Vote currently stands at 8 - 8; this is the nearest yet in the series of "votes" to a vindication of WP:COMMON and WP:NPOV. I suggest that if the opponents of WP:NPOV don't get at least 70% of the vote we take that as "no consensus" for a deviation from normal naming policy, and move the article forthwith. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time - don't count your chickens yet. Its not even a day. It could go either way, but likely "no consensus". Djegan (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

First, this is not a vote. Second, you might benefit from studying the diagram over a WP:CON - or maybe start small and ask someone to draw you a Dougle-style diagram of Dreams vs. Reality. If all that sounds like too much effort, how about by starting by suggesting what you believe would be a suitable compromise because unless you can effect a change to consensus, things stay as they are. --78.152.209.132 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who you are referring to here Mr IP. @ Dj - yep; bar a miracle we are heading towards "no consensus". But that is the chicken I'm counting on! Sarah777 (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Those who prefer Republic of Ireland are striving for NPOV; just like we are. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Albeit with political motivations behind them. A lot of editors who support ROI have been quite open about that fact.Pureditor 23:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The same charges could be made to us (who support 'Ireland (state)'. We must be careful, what we say. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you (Pureditor) trying to slur certain editors? That sort of thing is bound to backfire. Djegan (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is?Pureditor 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe I have misinterpreted your comment, you mean that "Ireland" supporters are not open about their political motivations? Djegan (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Guys calm down. Lets keep this objective. --Snowded TALK 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to be objective, but I read the above comment to mean that ROI supporters have "political motivations" to editing. Djegan (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some pro ROI editors have admitted as such. Just read above, or I can give you some diffs if you like. I'm not sue what political motivations Ireland supporters would have, from what I can see all they're trying to do is use the constitutional name recognized by the EU and the UN as the title of the state like the way it is on professional online encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta. But then again, I'm not Irish or British so I may be missing some political motivation, but considering the name is established in the real world I don't think I am.Pureditor 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

At various stages on this and related pages we all have suspicions as to political motives. The essence is to focus on facts so I suggest the exchange above cease. --Snowded TALK 00:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Your no more neutral than anyone else[11][12]. You struck out the first edit, whilst you tidied up the second. Djegan (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a position on this, and I am trying to argue a case. My request was for all of you in this last sequence to move on from attributing motives it doesn't help --Snowded TALK 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK so the two relevant governments call it Ireland, so does the EU, so does the UN. In addition two other Encyclopedia entries use Ireland. The arguments against reference a 1940's act and their opinion that it is wrong to call it Ireland as it does not cover the whole of the geographical entry. Come on guys, this is meant to be an objective discussion, not a rehash of old disputes. --Snowded TALK 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I've noticed Republic of Ireland is slowly continuing to be pipe-linked throughtout Wikipedia (sorry Sarah). Is that a good thing, while this page movement thingy is being conducted? GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm so slow G'Day - but have you any idea how tedious this work is? Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This *is* a rehash of old dispute. See the archives. The official name of the state is not in dispute. Whether is it better to use "Ireland (state)" or "Republic of Ireland" is. The 1948 act is the originator of the latter term. From 1937 until then people used Éire to disambiguate Ireland-the-state and Ireland-the-island. Since then Republic of Ireland' as become the commonly-used differentiator. Please do not make straw man arguments it insults both your own intelligence and the intelligence of other's for having to respond to you. --78.152.209.132 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Watcha talking about? GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

the "Straw Man" point seems an assertion to avoid engagement. All the books cited are pre 1995 --Snowded TALK 00:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre 1995 means pre the 1998 Belfast Agreement where the UK agreed to stop using ROI and use Ireland as the same of the state. (sorry for stating the obvious.)Pureditor 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Straw man" is a logical fallacy. If the straw man point is valid, then engagement in argument is impossible as a logical argument does not exist to respond to. As for Google books, I suggest you click onto page two to see more references. Or, if you are truly lazy (as I suspect you are), you can follow this link where it will show you only books from 1996 onwards - or indeed this one, which will show you only books for 2008. --78.152.209.132 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusing folk of being "truly lazy" is clearly in breach of WP:NPA. As you are an IP I'll be forced to remove your comments with extreme prejudice is you continue to engage in personal abuse. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's for an admin to decide, not a known belligerent like yourself. Remove my posts and we'll continue this discussion over at AN/I. --78.152.205.30 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My degree is Philosophy so I do know of the Straw man fallacy, but I will freely admit that at 0200 in the morning I may not have scrolled through all the pages on your reference. Even having scanned them now I not a lot are travel guides, with some political books that reference ROI. However the context of their reference (current or historic) is not revealed by the google search. I note that you have chosen not to deal with the arguments relating to official government bodies, or for that matter as yet to answer my question on your talk page as to whether you have previously edited the Wikipedia under any other name ( a fairly standard question to new IP addresses - your first edit was yesterday - who enter controversial areas). --Snowded TALK 00:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"The arguments against reference a 1940's act and their opinion that it is wrong to call it Ireland as it does not cover the whole of the geographical entry." Snowded, that was the straw man (OED: "A sham argument set up to be defeated."). You right, I did not engage with the straw man argment, because no argument existed. If you don't have the curtsey to engage with others in a forthright manner, why should others engage with you? I explained in my response how the straw man was fallacy. I am still await you to respond or to apologise for misrepresenting your fellow contributors.

You left a message on my talk page? Then you have about as much understanding of DHCP as as Pureditor. Was it a standard question to ask? No, it is not.

(p.s. "the context of their reference (current or historic)" - you are a funny guy! The term 'Republic of Ireland' refers only to the current Irish state from 1949 to present. It refers to no other entity every in history. The entity that is refers to is still in existence and the statute that defined the term is still in force. A "historic" reference is impossible.) --78.152.205.30 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi anon, I also don't understand the point you're trying to make. That some books published use the term? The "Republic of Ireland" is still the legal name of "Ireland" under UK domestic law. How many of these books are British? How many use the term to Dab against Norther Ireland? How many are incorrect (for example, in the 2008 link, the 2nd book mentioned on European Human Rights incorrectly quotes the case as Lawless VS Republic of Ireland when the actual case was Lawless VS Ireland..." --HighKing (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

With the Google books search results? To show that the term is widely used indicate the state and to distinguish the state from the island. (Snowded had inferred in his staw man that people did not use the term any more, or that use of it was out-dated.). "How many of these books are British?" Books themselves have no nationality. I assume you mean to ask how many of those books were published in the UK or written by British authors. A proportion, I suppose, given that it was an English-language search. Maybe try a different language if you don't like the Queen's English. "The 'Republic of Ireland' is still the legal name of 'Ireland' under UK domestic law." The "Republic of Ireland" is still the legal description of "Ireland" under Irish domestic law - and, more to the point, still the common way to distinguish Ireland-the-island from Ireland-the-state. What's your point? And what is your obsession with the UK and all things British? This is in international encyclopedia and this article deals with Ireland not the UK. --78.152.205.30 (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since history appears to be important here, I will add a little of my own. The 1948 Act was introduced by the Coalition Government of John A. Costello in September 1948 and opposed by Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil subsequently were in government for 16 consecutive years under de Valera, Lemass and Lynch, but never even suggested repealing the Act. Since the Good Friday Agreement and the amendment of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, Fianna Fáil have been in government for 10 years but, again, no suggestion has ever been made that the Act be repealed. I for one don't have any problem with the Irish or British governments using "Ireland"; there is no law that says they can't. But the fact remains that the description of the State is The Republic of Ireland. Therefore that is a correct and appropriate name for the article. It is the people who say "The Constitution says 'Ireland' so the article must say 'Ireland'" that are wikilawyering. Scolaire (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The description of Guinness is a black,alcoholic liquid with a white head. That doesn't change the fact that it's name is Guinness. The article should be at the name of the state not the description hense, Canada is the name and its at Canada not constitutional monarchy federation of Canada

But there's a very big difference between a description and a name. The article about the act explains it all very well. It all suggests that obviously, the name should be used.That's what a name is isn't it? My user page doesn't say User: Canadian Wikipedia Editor it gives my name.Pureditor 10:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland package deal

There is a vote taking place on moving "Republic of Ireland" to "Ireland (state). This package deal, while worthy of discussion, is a separate issue entirely and should be in a separate section. I have re-formatted it accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Support "Ireland" 'package deal'::

• (Reasons first): Encyclopaedia Britannica redirected my search of “Republic of Ireland” to an article called "Ireland" but uses “republic of Ireland” (small caps) throughout it. I like this ‘small cap’ option. I also noticed that Britannica doesn’t at all have an Ireland (as island) article – I’ve double checked. They have very small Great Britain and British Isles articles (basically link pages), but no article for the island of Ireland. I also notice that the Wikipedia Ireland (as island) article is mostly information forked from the Republic of Ireland article.

1. Have an article for the state called “Ireland” (per Britannica).
2. Have a much shorter island article entitled “The island of Ireland” (minimum forking!).
3. Offer “Ireland (state)” and "Ireland (island)" as optional terms, in the MOS guideline.
4. Suggest “republic of Ireland” (small R) as another optional expression, in the MOS guideline.
5. Have a shorter “Republic of Ireland” article offering the football team at the top. It can mention 1949 etc, and effectively be a sub-article of the main “Ireland” one.

These make sense to me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt, you are now like water in a desert where previously you were like water in a petrol tank! I 100% support your suggestions above. You appear to have finally grasped the complex issues involved here and distilled a viable solution. Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea of a Package might be a useful mechanism for getting beyond this cyclical 'frozen conflict'. RashersTierney (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the package deal Gnevin (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: In principle I'm in favour of compromise packages, but I'm afraid I could not support this one: "The island of Ireland" is a little used term that certainly would not be searched for by anybody; "republic of Ireland" with a small 'r' is never, but never, used; and "Republic of Ireland" with a capital 'R' is not a football team, it is a political entity. Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Who cares what people search for that what redirects are for Gnevin (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support I would endorse all of Sarah's comments here (and I mean all !). Matt has come up with an evidence based approach, that offers a way forward. Using a small "r" makes it a description not a name. Ireland can have a disambiguation line to take people to the isle page, and there ROI would link automatically. I note that the 1949 act is being pulled out again with complete disregard for subsequent history and that none of the protagonists for ROI are dealing directly with the evidence of UK government use other than to dismiss it in effect as a bad decision. --Snowded TALK 08:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move/rename/"package deal" proposal. The current naming/situation remains the best compromise in my view. In terms of the island article, "Ireland" remains a super-set term that can be applied to the state, the island, and various sub-sets of it going back 1000s of years, and therefore applying it to the super-set is the most appropriate. (And therefore I find that having "Ireland" as an article about the geo/geo-political/hist article about the entire island is most appropriate). In terms of the state article, while "Republic of Ireland" is a compromise name, (reflecting as it does the state's "description" rather than "name"), given the clash with other uses of the word, I think it remains the best article name, as: it is a naturally formed DAB term that is officially recognised, is in common use, and meets the relevant WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. (And is certainly more easily included in any article prose and explained in DAB terms than "Ireland (state)" or some other artificially contrived label). Guliolopez (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Better than anything going - many thanks for your ingenuity, Matt, and indeed I think we may be getting somewhere here - but fear that the "island of ..." construction treads onto neologisms (in the sense that this is a newly-preferred way to distinguish between the two in dimplomacy between the GB/IRL/NI) and that writing "republic of .." as opposed to 'Republic of ..." is unintuitive so long as the term Republic of Ireland as legal, common and practical currency. Furtermore the island is not called the "Island of Ireland", but simply "Ireland" - Wiki standard practice is not to make this prone to confusion by having it has Ireland (island), which I'm sorry I don't see the need for so long as a perfectly acceptable term ("Republic of Ireland") is there, in common use, easily recognizable and used for this exact purpose already. --78.152.205.30 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Hi anon. Have you editted before under another name? In polls such as these, I have seen cases where the opinions of anon IP addresses are ignored and not counted for obvious reasons. You might want to consider logging in. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Same anon as above. If another IP appears in this discussion, I'll make a distinguishing mark. Thanks again for the heads up. --89.19.88.246 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No its just an ip editor, he or she "chooses" to be anon. I reckon we ignore it for obvious reasons.Pureditor 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Pureditor, I have warned you once before. If you continue in your attack against me or to encourage other to "ignore" me then I will have to escalate this matter. Please strike out your comment. --89.19.88.246 (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, name it's at now is fine, and, with no disrespect intended, I don't see the arguments for moving to be anything like strong enough for this sort of "compromise" to be allowed to disrupt the status quo. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support Thats a very good suggestion Matt, it is based on fact and is NPOV. I think the aguments of "the current way works fine" is completely wrong; did they not see the massive discussions on IMOS about all the piping that needs to be done etc.?Pureditor 10:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support resolves a long running argument on WP that is inherently a political argument. WP should reflect reality, not push a political POV. I think my previous support got (accidentally) lost in the move. --HighKing (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)