Talk:Giant's Causeway

Suggested additions

To add: More on geology/formation, legends

Is it worth adding in more about the Causeway Coast itself - as the Giant's Causeway itself is part of this much larger UNESCO world heritage site the comprises a great deal of the Antrim Coastline. I notice the coast is mentioned in the fact box but not in the article itself. The Causeway Coast contains a number of related geological features such as the Carrick-A-Rede rope-bridge and many historical sites such as Dunluce Castle. Does an article about the Causeway Coast already exist? I cannot find one but maybe I am being blind. It could be argued that the Causeway Coast deserves an article in and of itself separate to the Giant's Causeway, but I would be concerned that such an article would belong in wikitravel as it is a Giant Tourist Trap. Any ideas?

I'll put in a much needed geology section into this article in next few weeks, with a better description of the formation of columnar jointing and an overview of the geological setting in which it was formed etc. etc. etc. Fossiliferous 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I've added a proposal to merge Giant's Causeway Legend into this article. Peyna 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

MERGE - It certainly should be. Neither this article nor that is developed enough to justify the two articles, nor is there the potential for the legend article to reach the sort of threshold required for separation. Bastin8 18:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

MERGE - Should be merged. Simply suggest new Legend sub-section in the Giant's Causeway article. Guliolopez 12:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative There already is information in the Causeway article about the legend but only a mention in the Fionn mac Cumhail article, perheps it should be merged there? SeanMack 13:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Any final thoughts on this? If no final updates, will likely merge the content from the Giant's Causeway Legend article into the existing legend section in this article, add a summary reference to the Fionn mac Cumhail article, and redirect the Giant's Causeway Legend entry to the this (main) Giant's Causeway article... Guliolopez 18:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

MERGE Too many themes beloging together are split up into several article--Hun2 16:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No brainer merge, really. Giant's Causeway Legend is not much more than a stub, and this article could do with expansion. Furthermore with this article expanded you could work the images into the text better and enlarge them. Right now you're wasting your images quite frankly. --kingboyk 05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Mal 23:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

MERGE This could cause less confusion.

Results of merger

I merged the Legend article into this one, though that has left some repeated information. I might get around to it, but I left a copyedit tag in case anyone else wants to try it in the meantime. I've already done a fair bit of work to it.. and please note that I have copied information from the website directly into the article as a comment, which might help other editors. I will delete this info once I feel all the info has been used - please leave it intact for now. --Mal 23:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have heard tell that the legend attached to the Giants Causeway is a relatively recent development (ie less than 400 years old) and that it was made up (or widely publicized) to attract the attention of the Romantics and the Victorian naturalists. Is there any reliable information concerning the development, age and origins of the myth? Ammi 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Website info

Setanta747 (talk · contribs) pasted the Giant's Causeway web site into the article as a comment below the main text. I have deleted it, as I deleted it when I copyedited the article a couple of days ago. I included everything from the web site in the article that I thought was appropriate for an encyclopedia. Text like "For centuries countless visitors have marvelled at the majesty and mystery of the Giants Causeway" is wonderful for a promotional web site but not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Neither is information on visitor center amenities or driving directions. The article links to the official web site so there is a clear way for people who are interested in visiting to find out more. Also there is the possibilty of copyright problems. In the US, information published by the government is in the public domain, but I don't know if that pertains to the UK, or if the National Trust is considered part of the government for purposes of copyright or considered a private agency. At this point I think that all the site details from the web site that belong in an encyclopedia are there. Thatcher131 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough Thatcher - I hadn't considered that you'd gone through it and copyedited appropriate info from it. If that is the case then its usefulness has now ended. As for copyright - the information wasn't published as such, which is specifically why I had added it as a comment. --Mal 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 08:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Job on the page.

References

World Heritage Site

World Heritage site of Ireland?! Ireland is what the Republic calls itself (and is its official name I believe). The Giant's Causeway is in the United Kingdom not Ireland and i've changed the article to reflect this reality. You can't use the word Ireland to refer to something that exists within the United Kingdom because of the words Irish Nationalist connotations.YourPTR! 04:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. In the context of the template, "Ireland" refers to the island (the geographical entity) rather than the "Republic of Ireland" (the political entity). You may note that there are two templates on the page; one "WH Sites of Ireland", the other "WH Sites in the UK". Both are likely valid in context. To engage in a "what the word 'Ireland' means or is assumed to mean" argument in the context of a natural phenomenon (which existed for 63 million years before the first human thought to give it a name or context) is probably not a good path to go down. (Someone[else] likely reverted your edit for this reason) Guliolopez 16:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that a causeway exists specifically to join two land masses across a stretch of water, couldn't we consider that one end is in Scotland ? We Scots don't market it as much as the Irish, but basalt columns crop up in many places on our west coast and Hebridean islands - Fingal's cave on Staffa, Kilt Rock on Skye, Howmore to Rubha Ardvule on Uist. If I remember correctly, it is locally known as the Giant's Causeway even in Scotland. It may even have been the last link when the islands divided as the sea lowered in prehistoric times ? Maybe maritime charts would confirm or deny that ? Citation needed ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture references / Trivia

The "popular culture references" section here includes some decidely NN inclusions. While there is some discussion about the value of "popculture" references in general, several of the examples listed here are not notable and read like fancruft that is not relevant to the context of the article subject. (A lot of the examples represent "throw away" references in books, backdrops for music videos or interviews, or whatever). Unless - for example - the Causeway was a significant theme in a notable work, it probably isn't notable here. Otherwise it seems dubious under WP:NOT#INFO. I'm going to do some summarising. Beyond that, the section may be worthy or a more complete cull in the longer term. Guliolopez 12:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This section is getting worse. More fancruft, with severely dubious relevance to the topic, continues to be added. (And - in my view - will be so long as the section exists). Are there any comments on the value of this content? Does it give additional context to the topic for the reader? Personally I think that the fact that someone wrote a (B-Side) song in 2003 named after a 50 million year old formation is irrelevant to the formation itself. Would like to confirm some consensus however before a cull here.... Guliolopez 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The WWE and Scooter references are entirely irrelevant. The Cremaster Cycle article doesn't even mention the Causeway, so it can go as well. The Led Zep and Stone Roses album covers probably have the best case for inclusion, they are certainly of interest - the Stone Roses' debut is arguably my favourite all-time album, but I had no idea the Causeway was the background of the album cover until I read this. They are both notable works, but as you said above they are not sufficiently significant themes in them. So cull the lot I say. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To date Led Zeppelin's Houses Of The Holy album has sold in the neighborhood of 12,000,000 copies. I feel that is enough to warrant some type of mention of it's album cover in this section. PCB 06 Aug 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.11.250 (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Trivia revisited

Unless there are other opinions, I'm going to summarise the Trivia section. Again. Since the last review, it has reverted to its long and unwieldy state. (With recently added references to non-notable book covers, throw away refs in Hellboy, the Simpsons, etc). This detail is - in my view - very very weak, of limited encyclopedic value, and represents the type of miscellaneous/random trivia that the relevant guidelines suggest we avoid. As noted before, this formation has been around for millions of years. The fact that it is mentioned fleetingly in a recent feature film, or was on screen for 5 seconds in a Simpsons episode isn't really relevant, and is a "symptom" of the subjects notability, rather than contributing to it. Compare to a "list of films and books the Great Pyramid of Giza is mentioned in" at the foot of that article. It would be ridiculously long and pointless. I may be misreading the guidelines here, so will await any other comments before engaging in some more summarisation (again). Guliolopez (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

History/Geology

I have separated these. However I have one ref. which refers to "slow cooling of the great pool of molten rock,..." I'm nor sure which is correct. Ref. Wilson, H.E.1972. Regional Geology of Northern Irelad Ministry of Commerce Geologiucal Servay of Northern Ireland, Belfast, Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Osborne 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Intrusive or Extrusive

The article seems to say that the origin of the rock is as an intrusive lava.... If it is an intrusive rock, it should be referred to as magma. If extrusive as lava. It is currently geologically incorrect. --86.145.68.88 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Location

where in NI is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's on the North East coast in County Antrim. Is mentioned a few times in the article. There is also a coordinates link up the top right. Guliolopez (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hexagonal prisms in nature

The article states, "While contraction in the vertical direction reduced the flow thickness (without fracturing), horizontal contraction could only be accommodated by cracking throughout the flow."

This empoverished explanation is frequently offered wherever polygonal cracks are described, such as in Formation of basalt columns, from the article's External Links section.

The only parsimonious, satisfying scientific explanation of the formation of right hexagonal prisms in nature is Bénard cells (see, for example, Hexagons: Wave Numbers & Defects).

In the case of the Giant's Causeway, it is easy to imagine convection occurring in liquid basalt lava, immediately prior to cooling. The viscosity of the basalt naturally drags adjacent material upward, as the hotter material rises due to buoyancy. This tends to form adjacent columns of alternately rising and falling material. The vertical motion of convection is, of course, the explanation for why fairly accurate right prisms are usually formed, rather than oblique prisms, pyramids, twisted columns, spirals, or other geometries that are sometimes seen in the laboratory.

Imagine a packing of cylindrical convection columns. They would be pushed together (the formation of cylinders would not occur because stable systems always contract to minimal-energy configurations), deforming the potential right cylinders touching each other at their six tangent points into right hexagonal prisms. Occasionally, defects in the chaotic column selection process would result in some prisms of polygons with other numbers of sides, such as 4 or 5.

This is just what we see in mud flats, the surface of the sun, and many other natural phenomena involving extended, approximately planar convection.

This is my opinion, not published research. Therefore, it cannot be included in the article. Could someone who is familiar with the literature please consider providing citations and integrating the above into the article? Thanks, David (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that ! Was surprised not to see links both ways.

Google only finds 6 items linking "Bénard cells" to "giant's causeway" or "basalt columns". Maybe we're wrong ? Or are Geologists and Physicists just not talking to each other ?

I suggested the shapes might differentiate the mechanism of formation:

Main difference is mud cracking is a surface phenomenon, but Benard cells go all the way through, like lettering in seaside rock ! The cracks have zero width, and tend to curve into part-circles. Mud tends to crack into straight-edged polygons, instead. Tension cracks will fork, and produce different-sized flakes, whereas convection cell boundaries will not have ends, and will form cells of similar sizes. Two other combinations of cell are notable: bisected circles (screw-head) and near-perfect circles surrounded by six or seven others with radial boundaries (flower-petals). Both fit convection better than tension cracking.

Interesting you link Benard Cells to mud cracking ! I had considered that to be an entirely different case. Maybe both mechanisms work together ? Paint cracking on a vertical surface can show a similar hexagonal pattern, but is homogeneous - or do you get horizontal-axis cells due to solvent evaporation instead of convection ?

You can sometimes see them in pans of water or chip-frying oil during heating ...

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

--thanks--: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.229.146.4 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the coordinates in this article need fixing as:

55deg 14' 28 N 6 deg 30' 43 W

This being the centre of the Grand Causeway

Current co-ordinates refer to Port na Pleaskin some 2km away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.188.137 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've altered the coordinates accordingly -- not to those given above, but to 55°14′27″N 6°30′42″W which appears to more accurately point to the main causeway (check link). Fattonyni (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Geobox/type/nature

I've swapped the UNESCO World Heritage infobox for a {{Geobox}} which incorporates the UNESCO information as a section. I've kept the original infobox (commented out) though, in case anyone takes issue with this edit. Any thoughts? Fattonyni (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Similar structures: bulleted or prose?

After I reverted the most recent change of this I realised there had already been a number of swaps of format prior to my edit -- so I thought I would ask for a consensus: Should the list of similar structures be in bulleted or prose form? State your view below.

• Bulleted - it is far more legible and well-seated in Wikipedia's standard formatting. I also find it neater. Fattonyni (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Revise to Prose, summarise, move down as per Guliolopez's idea (below) – This sounds like a good solution -- I agree that not all of the instances need to be mentioned in the list; perhaps just 3-4 of the most notable ones. This would make the prose much more legible and tidy, and avoid it having too much impact on the overall article. Fattonyni (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Prose, summarise, move down - This article is about the Giant's Causeway. Not about sequential fragmentation or quasihexagona columnar structures in general. The advantage of the previous prose was that it was "low impact" to the main intent. This new and extensive list is too long and impactful given the intent of the article. It should be summarised and moved down to sit AFTER everything that deals with the actual subject. I believe it should be prose and deal with a few similar key structures. Not every instance. If it remains a bulleted list, it should be treated as almost like a "see also" section. Which is effectively what it is. Guliolopez (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Prose - I'm not saying the prose version is absolutely fantastic at the moment, but bullet points look amateurish. The prose does need to be altered but it must stay as prose and not as bullet points. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. It seems that there was apparent consensus in the above, so I've gone ahead and restored the prose formatting. I also moved it down below the "features" section. I also went ahead and summarised the list - removing those which didn't have a mention in an article of their own, or significant coverage in a related article. (I did this on the basis that this article ISN'T a "list of basalt column structures around the world". And shouldn't become one.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

'Worth seeing but not worth going to see'

Was it Samuel Johnson who said this about Giant's Causeway. Does that merit a mention on the page somewhere? Martyn Smith (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a country

There seems to be a propensity by some to revert constructive edits relating to the Giants Causeway's location within Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a country just like Scotland, England, Wales and off-course the Republic of Ireland. If you don't believe me check out Wikipedia at Northern Ireland and read it for yourself. I'll give you a clue...it's in the first sentence of the first paragraph! States something about it being a country!! --84.93.157.59 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. In just about every other article NI is described as the country - which it quite clearly is. NI is not a region. The correct usage here should be Country = Northern Ireland, State = United Kingdom. I'll see if I can change it. I cannot imagine why anyone would support the current version. LevenBoy (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work LevenBoy. The edit was a complete joke. I think there is a clique or one person with multiple accounts who is intent on erasing everything that is Northern Ireland.Factocop (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a country according to UNESCO, and seeing as you are using a World Heritage infobox it follows their standard. O Fenian (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are talking total bullshit and I've reverted your vandalism - and that is what it is. If you revert again I'll take it to AN/I. LevenBoy (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Where on the website does it say that Northern Ireland is not a country? This is not the place for this discussion. I suggest you raise the issue at the Northern Ireland Wikipedia page. Good luck :) .Factocop (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1. "One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." - S. Dunn and H. Dawson, 2000, An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Edwin Mellen Press: Lampeter
2. "Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." - D. Murphy, 1979, A Place Apart, Penguin Books: London
3. "Although a seat of government, strictly speaking Belfast is not a 'capital' since Northern Ireland is not a 'country', at least not in the same sense that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries'." - J Morrill, 2004, The promotion of knowledge: lectures to mark the Centenary of the British Academy 1992-2002, Oxford University Press: Oxford
4. "Not a country in itself, Northern Ireland consists of six of the thirty-two original counties of Ireland, all part of the section of that island historically known as Ulster." - J V Til, 2008, Breaching Derry's walls: the quest for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, University Press of America
5. "Northern Ireland is not a country in itself, but a small fragment torn from the living body of Ireland where now the last act of its long struggle for independence is being played out." - W V Shannon, Northern Ireland and America's Responsibility in K M. Cahill (ed), 1984, The American Irish revival: a decade of the Recorder, 1974-1983, Associated Faculty Press
6. "Northern Ireland (though of course not a country) was the only other place where terrorism can be said to have achieved a comparable social impact." - M Crenshaw, 1985, An Organizational Approach to the Analysis of Political Terrorism in Orbis, 29 (3)
7. "The study compare attitudes in Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, the UK, Holland, Ireland, Italy and West Germany. It also includes Northern Ireland, which of course is not a country." - P Kurzer, 2001, Markets and moral regulation: cultural change in the European Union, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
8. "As I see it, I'm an Irish Unionist. I'm Irish, that's my race if you like. My identify is British, because that it the way I have been brought up, and I identify with Britain and there are historical bonds, psychological bonds, emotional bonds, all the rest of it you know. ... Bit to talk of independence in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - Michael McGimpsey quoted in F. Cochrane, 2001, Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork University Press: Cork
9. "Moreover, Northern Ireland is a province, not a country. Even before direct rule, many of the decisions affecting the economy, labour law, and wage bargaining were in reality taken in London, thereby diminishing the importance of local control." A Aughey, 1996, Duncan Morrow, Northern Ireland Politics, Longmon: London

There you go, ample evidence that claiming Northern Ireland is a country is not neutral. O Fenian (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you not take this argument to the Northern Ireland Wikipedia page? Northern Ireland is a country within a soverign state.FACT!Factocop (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you really going to dispute an article form Cambridge University Press? Bravo O Fenian for finding these wide variety of credible references. --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no need for me to go to any other article, since first of all Wikipedia cannot source itself, and secondly Northern Ireland is not described there using the bare descriptor "country", but as a "county of the United Kingdom", which is a different thing entirely. I also refer you back to the UNESCO list which lists sites by country, and Northern Ireland does not appear on the list only the United Kingdom. O Fenian (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that this is not a change I have implemented, it has said United Kingdom for ages and ages, before this edit, which the IP then tried making again, then the baton was taken up by The Maiden City and other editors after him. Having the country as United Kingdom (which is a country) is the stable version, unlike having the country as Northern Ireland (which is not a country). O Fenian (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with O Fenian as stated above describing Northern Ireland as a country is not neutral, and also stated above UNESCO groups by country and that is United Kingdom not NI. Mo ainm~Talk 18:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wait, what? Are we just disregarding every other article on Wikipedia that comments on this? Northern Ireland, by every other article related to the topic that i've seen on Wikipedia, is labeled as a country. Like this, for example. Silverseren^C 17:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is neutral to describe Northern Ireland as a country, that is what is done on many articles and it is reliably sourced including by Her Majesty's Government. What is put in the infobox depends on the limitations of the infobox. It should say UK + NI, if the only way to do that is with Country: UK, Reigion: NI then i support the status quo. If it is possible to change the field titles to say something like Sovereign State: United Kingdom. Country: Northern Ireland. Then i will support that. Like the infobox used at Manchester. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I second BW's proposal. The sources that have been brought up here (while good job in finding them) appear to be in a minority as this does mention in FAQ's what counts as a country within the UK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with BW proposal. Northern Ireland will soon be competing in the Commonwealth Games [1] as a country. Good on them. --87.113.88.49 (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

They say the Isle of Man is a country too... O Fenian (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would refer editors to Talk:Northern_Ireland/Archive_8#"Country" (no doubt discussed before) to see how this became the current wording of the Northern Ireland article. The first post is worth reading especially, it says "It is disenginious, misleading, non-neutral (and undue weight) to so baldly state that Northern Ireland is a "country" when the same thing can be expressed by simply stating that it is a "part of the United Kingdom". (Reminder: the current version says that Northern Ireland is both a "country" and a "part of the United Kingdom" as if they are two distinct facts.) Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, that is simple and unambigious. But to say that Northern Ireland is a "country" (without at the least a qualification of what is meant) is false on very many levels and deeply misleading". Academic sources have been provided that reject the very idea of Northern Ireland being a country, and it would be a major breach of neutral point-of-view to ignore them and simply label Northern Ireland a "country" in this article. I do not see why people are so intent on claiming the Giant's Causeway is not in a country called the United Kingdom, which is not disputed as being so. O Fenian (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i partly agree with you. I would oppose simply listing Northern Ireland as country without any mention of the United Kingdom. However if it was possible to say Sovereign state: United Kingdom. Constituent Country: Northern Ireland, we should do that as a compromise. Reliable sources say Northern Ireland is a country. Id rather the UK was just considered a country, but they are considered 4 countries of the United Kingdom. It is not unacceptable to say Northern Ireland is a country. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We could always just say Country: Northern Ireland (United Kingdom). As another compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Geobox|Protected Area}}

So it would look like this. That way we do not call Northern Ireland a region which i think is what people are concerned about. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Isle of Man is a self-governing British Crown Dependency, it is not a country. Northern Ireland is however a country within the United Kingdom. I would like to see them call Scotland a Region? I agree with you BW, time to change Region to Country as it should be.--87.113.88.49 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my 2 cents. I think it should be 'Country-Northern Ireland, Sovereign State-United Kingdom'. Aside from that I think this should be raised at the discussion forum of the Northern Ireland WP rather than go through every town and place in Northern Ireland with a WP and has Northern Ireland listed as a country.Pilgrimsquest (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont think the template allows Sovereign state to be put. How do you feel about the example >>> BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter, i suspect you wont be able to respond soon. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

While it excludes the significant, if not majority, viewpoint that Northern Ireland is not a country, there is little prospect of consensus for change. O Fenian (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is accepted as a country on wikipedia. Reliable sources at Countries of the United Kingdom show this. What is inaccurate about changing it to say Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) in the country field. That addresses the concern about stating region - Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. I suggest looking at the links I provided and the sources. You are not presenting a single point-of-view as fact in the face of evidence that disputes that point-of-view. O Fenian (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem with the proposal to put Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)? in the country field. That addresses concerns about NI being described as a region that some have. Northern Ireland is described as a country of the UK on wikipedia, this is reliably sourced. So there is nothing incorrect about saying it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best that if O Fenian and friends are so easily offended, I think we should just remove Geography altogether and just say 'Somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere'. Northern Ireland is a country and to ignore the facts and the majority view on Wikipedia purely to satisfy a few does not make sense.Pilgrimsquest (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What friends of O Fenian have you encountered? Should we use check user on your account? Or would it also be inaccurate? --NorthernCounties (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done. O Fenian (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I had assumed it was to good to be true when Wikipedia was quiet this weekend, I shall wait in the shadows until further socks undoubtly raise their heads. Well done getting that one sorted quickly --NorthernCounties (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about this? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think following the template above would be the best decision, since it lists Northern Ireland properly as a country, but then clarifies that it is still a part of the United Kingdom. Silverseren^C 15:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As O Fenian and NorthernCounties have pointed out, calling Northern Ireland a country is inaccurate and controversial. However, the term country itself is ambiguous. The simple solution would be to use the location field and have

State: United Kingdom

Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland

I think this argument has shown that the template itself needs to be changed; since country is ambiguous and not every state is divided into regions, districts or municipalities. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If we could just add in a Sovereign State section higher than Country, that would work fine. But Country is still the correct term, regardless of controversy, otherwise we wouldn't have this article. Silverseren^C 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In aid to arrive at a conclusion, I would support changing the template. Or even something along the lines of what is present here. Where it includes Sovereign State, Constituent Country, County. --NorthernCounties (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we should steal the format from that template. Silverseren^C 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you would be correct Asarlaí. And no doubt the same debate arose around the infobox's which concerned English Cities. This option appears to possibly satisfy all those concerned. --NorthernCounties (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing it to include fields : Sovereign State and Constituent Country seems to be a good way of resolving this. Is it simple to change the template to include those extra optional fields? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at a lot of pages recently on Northern Ireland for my initial research alot of the pages say Sovereign State: UK, Country: Northern Ireland. So why the fuss over the Giant's Causeway? I would imagine most people know the ingredients of the UK if they don't they can just read the UK WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.201 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, I don't think everyone is in agreement to change anything? Having scanned the thread there is some compelling sources that suggest that Northern Ireland isn't a country but probably as many if not more suggesting it is a country. In absence of an agreement should the page not just be changed to be consistent with every other page with a Northern Topic ie Sovereign State:UK, Country: NI? I think someone mentioned before that this not the page either to discuss this given that it is such a large topic being discussed solely by those who monitor this page. Aside from this I am not sure how Northern Ireland being called a country could be deemed offensive or non-neutral?Dame edna uk (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought the idea of putting Sovereign state: UK, Constituent country: Northern Ireland, in the infobox as suggested above was the best option dealing with concerns on both sides. I tried changing the infobox, but it didnt work. Its in line with some of the templates like at Manchester. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this page going to be changed? It still says country: 'United Kingdon' when it should say Northern Ireland.Factocop (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not a country. O Fenian (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom isnt a country. so where does that leave us? Could we just remove United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and just say some in the Northern Hemisphere? or would that too be deemed offensive and non-neutralFactocop (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country. Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom. The proposed solution about changing the template was a good idea, sadly the template is mind boggling and ive no clue how to change it without messing everything up. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with the Northern Ireland wikipedia page, Northern Ireland is a country. It has been agreed there. So all you need to do is change Country to Northern Ireland and remove region or you can change region to sovereign state and include UK.simples.Factocop (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a copy of the template used User:BritishWatcher/geobox. It does not look very simple to add fields like sovereign state and constituent country. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

just copy part of the template from another page.Factocop (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"In keeping with the Northern Ireland wikipedia page, Northern Ireland is a country", wrong. Wikipedia cannot source itself. Northern Ireland is not a country, since its description as such is disputed by many reliable sources. There is no official legal designation of what Northern Ireland actually is by the British government. You cannot exclude sources because you dislike what they have to say in order to present opinion as fact. O Fenian (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well given that the content of the Northern Ireland Wikipedia page is based on numerous reliable sources, i'd say it is safe to assume that those same sources can be applied to this page aswell. Its a matter of consistency aswell. The consensus on the Northern Ireland WP is that it is a country and that being the case this consensus should filter down through all Northern Ireland related articles.Factocop (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying Sovereign state: United Kingdom. Constituent country: Northern Ireland in the infobox is the best compromise, but it is not simple to change the template, you cant just copy and paste something. There is line after line saying country there, ive no idea where to insert them. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, what is the difference between saying Country and Constituent Country? Why is this page treated differently to every other page on Northern Ireland. If you go to any Northern Ireland Town page, the template includes Sovereign State and Country. Just change country to Northern Ireland and remove region.Factocop (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will edit this page to say Country:Northern Ireland and Sovereign State:United Kingdom in keeping with Infobox UK place template and other Northern Ireland related pages. Will leave it 24hrs before test edit.Factocop (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop, have you not read the above discussion? There is NO consensus for you to do the proposed edit so I suggest you leave it until a consensus is reached. Bjmullan (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To describe Northern Ireland as a country is inherently point-of-view. O Fenian (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have said before that this is hardly the place to discuss whether Northern Ireland is a country or not. That question should be discussed at a much larger forum. Would you agree?Factocop (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this page should be different to other Northern Ireland related WP? If you look at any Northern Ireland town page they all say Country:Northern Ireland and Sovereign State:United Kingdom so until consensus is reached at a much larger forum, I think this page should be consistent with every other page relating to Northern Ireland. If there are no further objections then, I will edit the page to be consistent with other Northern Ireland related pages.Factocop (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No consensus so please leave as per my comments above. Bjmullan (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

When you say consensus...did you raise this issue at a larger forum? I have said before, and you have chosen to ignore this point already but this issue affects all Northern Ireland related WP so this is obviously not the correct discussion page for this. This page will be changed to be in line with other Northern Ireland related articles until a consensus has been reached at a larger arena. Any further objections?Factocop (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you are still not getting the indenting thing, it is very useful and all other editor would appreciate if you would comply with the norm. As for your question yes there is still objection as there isn't any consensus and you just repeating your statement doesn't change anything. Bjmullan (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you raised this discussion at a larger forum? Why should this page be different from every other page relating to Northern Ireland? If you can not answer these questions, I will assume no objections to the change.Factocop (talk) 11:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out this morning I am NOT your question and answer boy. Of course this issues is being discussed elsewhere why don't you go and find it. Bjmullan (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats the thing, I couldnt find it. If this is being discussed else where and consensus has not been met then this page should be changed to be in line with other Northern Ireland related pages. You still didnt answer my questions so ill assume no objection. Last chance....Why should this page be different from every other page relating to Northern Ireland? Factocop (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Factocop. Firstly, I would respectfully point you to the following recommendation against declaring an ultimatum. It is not in the spirit of consensus to do so, and will only result in problems. Secondly, I would also point out that the UNESCO infobox (as with all other UNESCO infoboxes) refers to the "state party" which is signatory to the convention. This is the UK, and not NI. Guliolopez (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didnt mean it to sound like an ultimatum and Your right its not in the spirit of consensus, but I am not seeking consensus to whether Northern Ireland is a country or not on this page as it is far too small a forum for such a large issue. Bjmullan, has suggested that this issue has been raised elsewhere but cant find it. My notion is that if consenus can not or has not been reached that the page should reflect all other pages on Northern Ireland. I would agree with the UNESCO template. But at present the UNESCO template is not in use. I would be happy to use the template as used at Stone Henge for example.Factocop (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ok, any objection to using the UNESCO template used at Stone Henge? If not, ill work away.Factocop (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}? Because this article seems to use it already. The difference between this one and Stonehenge is that this one uses {{Geobox}} before {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}. TFOWR 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR, the problem here lies with certain users do not want to see Country:Northern Ireland in the infobox. I am guessing they are of a particular political persuasion that does not wish to recognise Northern Ireland as a country. Anyway...If you go to any other page relating to Northern Ireland you find in the infobox Country:Northern Ireland and Sovereign State:United Kingdom. I would wish to have this page brought into line with other pages in Northern Ireland. Some users wish to argue that Northern Ireland is not a country here, in this very talk page. I am hoping that you would agree that, that argument needs to be brought to a larger forum? Bjmullan suggests that this discussion has already been raised. do you know where? I think until consensus is reached, either the page should be consistent with other Northern Ireland related pages or in line with the stone henge template as this does not include country in the infobox. what do you think?Factocop (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI Factocop the UNESCO template doesn't support using NI in the box. It can only have countries recognised by UNESCO there (i.e. UK). Bjmullan (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I'm familiar with the dispute, and trying to stay well out of it ;-) I was only querying "adding" the UNESCO template - as it seems to be used already. I suspect I'm missing something, however... are we discussing {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} or a different template?

Back to the dispute, the question "where is the wider forum where this is being discussed?" does seem a reasonable one. I don't know the answer. I'd like to know the answer. Bjmullan, if you don't fancy telling Factocop, could you at least tell me?! TFOWR 17:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See my name page TFOW. Answered 5 minutes before you asked :-) Bjmullan (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, ain't it always the way ;-) Ta! TFOWR 18:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. Not sure where why it's anyone-else's responsibility to point it out, but a quick search shows that the "country: yes/no" question has been raised on Talk:Ireland and Talk:Northern Ireland (lots and lots of times) - with no clear consensus either way. This is all somewhat mute however. If any editor is interested in changing the labels on the GEOBOX template, then my advice is to go and raise any concerns on the relevant infobox talk, (with a rationale as to why a new geo-political sub-division/label is required). If this is accepted/implemented in the infobox, then that takes the technical infobox limitations of the equation. Once that's sorted, any proposing editor is free to come back here with a rationale on why the new label should be used over the current. Otherwise all we're doing is going around in circles, and "buck passing". Guliolopez (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

http://erc.unesco.org/portal/UNESCOMemberStates.asp?language=en - Here UNESCO has United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a 'member state'. This being the case then the current template is wrong as it should say 'member state:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' not 'Country:United Kingdom'. Would you be happy with the stone henge template?Factocop (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tried a test, the template supports Country:Northern Ireland but does not support Sovereign State:United Kingdom. Maybe it only supports State Party:United Kingdom' as per the stone henge template?Factocop (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

2 more tests, Template supports state:UK and country:NI but does not support state party:United Kingdom. Bj, what did you mean when you said template doesnt support NI in the template?Factocop (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you are still struggling with indents. The UNESCO template would not support putting Northern Ireland into the State Party field as only countries can be put there and NI is not a country. Why do you wish to use the UNESCO template? Bjmullan (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep on forgetting the indents. Ohh sorry, I thought you meant the current template. I dont wish to put Northern Ireland in the state party field. State party field is not for countries, it is for member states of which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a member. Would you be happy if we used the exact same template as stone henge and in infobox state party:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Obviously I would prefer to bring the current template location to be in line with other Northern Ireland related pages, so this seems like a compromise to use the template used by other historic sites Wiki pages.Factocop (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Stonehenge just used United Kingdom in the State Party field. I see no benefit to anyone in changing the template. Can you perhaps list the reasons/advantages below? Bjmullan (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you answer my questions first? You said that the template doesnt support Northern Ireland in the country heading but it does. As it supports Northern Ireland in the template, I will edit the page to be in line with other Northern Ireland related pages.Factocop (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone find the exact same template used for this page? chances are it has been edited so much that it is a dilute of the actual page. I think region actual refers to 'Europe' not 'Northern Ireland' and 'country' should be replaced by 'State party'. what do people think?Factocop (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thus mentioned in one of the topics above but the current template is a Geobox which incorporates some UNESCO information. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGiant%27s_Causeway&action=historysubmit&diff=267427593&oldid=259262986.Factocop (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country, Northern Ireland is not. I really do not see what else is to be discussed here. O Fenian (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823 - this source is pretty compelling and pretty reliable given that is is a government website.Factocop (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have said several times before, this is not the place to discuss this. No consensus has been reached on this topic so until it has been reached, can you give me a reason why this page should have a different geobox than every other Northern Ireland related article? Can you?Factocop (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes to this article are discussed here. The previous consensus on this article remains in place until there is a new consensus, you do not get to implement your new preferred version in the interim. O Fenian (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just answer the question O Fenian, can you give me a reason why this page should have a different geobox than every other Northern Ireland related article?Factocop (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Those should be changed too to reflect the fact that Northern Ireland has no official legal or official status as a country, and that even describing it as a country is controversial. O Fenian (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how calling Northern Ireland a country is controversial...aside from that it seems that you agree with me on the matter of consistency. At present though as it stands, there are just as many sources to suggest Northern Ireland is a country as there are to say that it is a region/statelet. And given that the overwhelming majority of Northern Ireland related pages state that Northern Ireland is a country, this page should also reflect that view.Factocop (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot source itself. Northern Ireland is not a country and its description as one is disputed by very many reliable sources. There is no official legal designation by the British government of what Northern Ireland actually is.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

pointless post really. You are just repeating what O_Fenian is saying. I am not sourcing another wikipedia page, I am simply saying that as a matter of consistency, all the pages should be in tune with each other. its quite logical. Contradiction -> For you to say that Northern Ireland is not a country would be to ignore all the realiable sources that say it is. Try to look past the Northern Ireland issue and focus on the issue of consistency,Factocop (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, all the Articles should be in tune with each other. As noted above there is no official legal designation by the British government of what Northern Ireland actually is. For the sake of consistency, all wikipedia articles should reflect that. Being consistently wrong, dose not make it right. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there are plenty of sources that would suggest otherwise and I know how you dont like to ignore reliable sources. Currently there is no consensus on Wikipedia, so as it stands Northern Ireland IS a country. That being the case, for consistency this page will be changed to match the current status of Northern Ireland based on the last consensus.Any objection to the logic?Factocop (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The issues of sources have been dealt with in this discussion, so no useful purpose in having to repeat it. There is no consensus for your proposed changes, therefore it is wrong to ignore that. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It was you that brought up the issue of sources. You were just going over old ground. I dont think I need consensus here given that the consensus of 'Northern Ireland is a country' is long established across Northern Ireland related WP. So there is a consensus for change.Factocop (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How can you possibly claim "consensus", when there are at least half a dozen editors HERE who have indicated that the proposed changes are problematic. As noted earlier above, given that the concerns being raised are over labels (not inclusion), my recommendation remains that you push for a change to the Geobox template (to add "Constituent country" and/or "Sovereign state" or similar to that box). And - once that's done - come back here to reopen your proposed change. Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just ignoring this discussion and the issues raised is very unhelpful and counter productive. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Domer, Im glad you have realised the error of your ways. Great Stuff.

Guliolopez, can you tell me why you think the geobox on this page should be different from every other Northern Ireland related page? If you go on to any other Northern Ireland related page, the geobox contains Country:Northern Ireland and Sovereign State:United Kingdom. Why should this page be any different?Factocop (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Geobox on every other northern Ireland article or are they infobox? VirtualRevolution (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, Virtual Revolution. Thanks for another invaluable contribution. The question still begs to be answered...why should the infoboxes of every other Northern Ireland related pages be different from the content of the geobox on this page?Factocop (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Factocop. Semantics aside, your core argument seems to be that, "there is consensus" because on all "other Northern Ireland related page[s], the [infobox] contains Country:Northern Ireland and Sovereign State:United Kingdom". Doing a quick search, I find that similar NI topics either don't have an infobox, or don't specify the location in the same way. EG: other National Trust managed property pages don't ref the region/country in the different infoboxes, other AONB pages don't include an infobox, other geographical subjects say "UK" only, etc. So, let me turn this around again, what precedent are you using to support your claim that other similar topics use the convention you're advocating? Guliolopez (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop as has been pointed out to you in this discussion a number of times now, and on your talk page you were advised to " avoid claims that all these other articles do it this way, because as you've heard before, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for itself." Must I again have to say it that ignoring this discussion and the issues raised is very unhelpful and counter productive. Please stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sourcing wikipedia! anyway... Guliolopez, obviously very hard to compare pages with different templates but here is Ballycastle which is only a few miles away from Giants Causeway. How can they be a matter of miles apart yet have a different location? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballycastle,_County_Antrim.Factocop (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Guliolopez, can you answer this question for me?Factocop (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why should the labels on the geobox be "constituent country" and "sovereign state"? Several reasons - not least the fact that half a dozen editors have explained why your proposed change is problematic, and why you therefore need to come up with a compromise that addresses those concerns. (My suggestion is just that, a compromise suggestion. You can ignore it if you like, but this isn't going to move forward without compromise). Secondly, you've provided as your example an infobox which is specifically designed for use on UK/NI pages. As such it already (partially) addresses the disambig issue between "country" (sovereign state) and "(constituent) country of the UK". The geobox is a general template which doesn't have a built-in disambig which addresses this. Hence my suggestion that you address that issue with the geobox infobox first. (FYI - This will be my last response to your "answer my question or else" style approach to discussion. This constant restating of the same point/question [ignoring the answers you don't like] is disruptive - bordering on trolling). Guliolopez (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I didnt suggest the geobox be "constituent country" and "sovereign state"? I suggested country and "sovereign state". Were getting no where here. ok, compromise, how about we remove the geobox altogether, leaving the UNESCO infobox, which would be essentially a page replication of the stone henge page?Factocop (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with the I did't hear that, you were clearly told to "avoid claims that all these other articles do it this way" and you still keep it up. Stop please. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Domer, you really are struggling to understand this logic. You have my sympathy so Ill try a little harder. On the Northern Ireland WP, it says it is a country, backed up by realiable sources. By logic shouldnt every topic under the umbrella of Northern Ireland say the same?Factocop (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Domer, can you answer this question?Factocop (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit Break

In light of this discussion, and despite the advice after your unblock request this edit could be considered to be both provocative and disruptive and do not escalate this dispute to other articles.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dom, patronise someone else please? you ignore every question posted yet constantly quote rule. go away. as for the lough, in that article it says that its at the border of Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, but by your view, Northern Ireland isnt a country so technicallty wouldnt have a border with a country. Countries share borders, not 1 country and 1 region.Factocop (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, regions have borders too. You agreed to pursue dispute resolution and not to edit war. Making the same edit in a different article doesn't make it a different war. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

True but in the article, its says that Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland share an 'International Border'. That would make Northern Ireland a country as per that page.back to my point before, but I dont see how the Giants Causeway and Ballycastle have different locations yet be a matter of miles apart?Factocop (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you take the advice you were given and address your post here, I would also advise you remain civil and point out that comments such as these are not helpful and do not promote cooperation. This talk page is not a battlefield so read our talk page guidlines and stop with the personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop the advice given here should also be taken heed off. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Dom, are you serious? I dont know whether to laugh or cry. I took Sarek's advice and changed the comment. Everything else you have posted doesnt really apply given that I have remained civil despite your contiually ignorance of the questions I have posted. Your right this isnt a battlefied. well done! and your right again personal attacks dont help the discussion but answering questions does..so if you could be civil and courtesy and join the discussion and answer the questions. Thanks mate.Factocop (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't want to get involved too much but according to WP:SOAP, Factocop may have a case as the idea that NI is not a country does seem a lot like political POV pushing to me (which is prohibited under policy) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:SOAP, applies to this discussion, unless you wish to dismiss sources which challenge your view out of hand? There is no official legal designation by the British government of what Northern Ireland actually is. Do you wish to challenge this, as unsupported claims and accusations may be covered by WP:SOAP, but is definitly covered by WP:NPA. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it again, the only solution here is to change the template to include "sovereign state" and "constituent country". This was supported by NorthernCounties, Silverseren, BritishWatcher and Guliolopez (please correct me if I'm wrong). BW posted a request for the change on 1 October. Why has nothing been done about it? ~Asarlaí 11:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is a little bit more to it than that, and is reflected in the above discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggested further up the thread that as a compromise, the geobox could be removed completely, that way Northern Ireland is not demoted to region or stated as country. The page would then resemble the Stone Henge page using the UNESCO template only. I think to call Northern Ireland a constituent country, would suggest that it is still a country, so you might as well just say Country:Northern Ireland but I dont think Domer would agree to that.Factocop (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As per previous Editors posts! Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do I bother? I have not commented on your personality, I made a conclusion based on your previous edits, nothing more. No need to be so sensitive all the time. What do you think of my suggestion then?Factocop (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either info boxes used in this article at present. I however find it more strange and worrying as to wh the article doesn't state "County Antrim, Northern Ireland" as any other lede dealing with the localities of places would as far as i know, and so i have amended this oversight. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As it stands there are 2 suggestions for change - remove the geobox altogether as suggested by myself or include "sovereign state" and "constituent country" as suggested by BritishWatcher/Asarlaí. What is the consensus on these 2 suggestions?Factocop (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not ignore the points raised above by a number of editors. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop just be thankful the current infobox even states Northern Ireland - region or not (it is a region of the UK afterall). Stone Henge just states "State Part: United Kingdom". Will you fight to get England stated on that article as well and argue that it be changed to soverign and constituent?

In fact an even better solution might be this: Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland, UK. or just Location: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. This would match Studenica monastery which is also a UNESCO site and avoid terms that people would find contentious. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I would have no problem stating 'England' on the Stone Henge WP, but that page doesnt have a geobox, and the UNESCO template only has state party. Thats why I suggested removing the geobox altogether and just having 'State Party:United Kingdom'. To use 'Region' on this page is a bit confusing given that it is mentioned twice, once in the geobox, and once in the UNESCO template, and both with different regions.Factocop (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuck me, just read all that, you people fight about some weird shit. I like the forced civility, very amusing.

Proposal

Ok heres a simple proposal which i've got from the following UNESCO heritage site article; Studenica monastery. Why don't we just simply state instead of State party/country/region/constituent country etc. etc. one of the following simple input:

• A - Location: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom or
• B - Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
• C - Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland
• D - Location: County Antrim, United Kingdom

A simple solution to avoid troublesoome terms? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I could accept any of these. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggested something similar (above) but there wasn't much of a response. My proposal was

State: United Kingdom

Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland

Either that or we change the template. ~Asarlaí 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• C --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• C -- But I dont think there is a need to mention 'state' as 'state party' is already mentioned in UNESCO box. I would be very happy with an exact replica of the Studenica monastery WP.Factocop (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If we go for an exact replica of the Studenica monastery it would say State Party: UK | Region: Europe and North America and I get the very strong impression that you want to see NI somewhere. And just so you understand NI is NOT a UNESCO party state. Bjmullan (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the Studenica monastery article Bjumullan? The first line in the box after the picture states "Location" - that is a perfect place to put say County Antrim, Northern Ireland. State party can still say UK and region say Europe yadda yadda. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mabuska I am such a prat :-) And I agree that a solution would be to use this template and I would go for C as well. Bjmullan (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the options that nowhere say United Kingdom which should continue to be mentioned somewhere in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to worry BW, it would say UK in the State party. Bjmullan (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan, I am quite happy. Northern Ireland will be in the location. I am happy with option C.Factocop (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well this will mean consolidating the two infoboxes into one, which makes sense as they both share nearly all the same information. Problem is, the World Heritage Site infobox doesn't allow for a "location" tag, so we would have to use a entirely different box such as the one the Studenica monastery one uses. The Geobox however allows for more geo-historical information in it as well as the "location", however only allows for the declaration of "State" instead of "State party". Heres an example of Geobox infobox amended to try to implement the ideas above with option C.

Funnily enough the first one will be as how Asarlai's idea would of worked, unless we can somehow change the World Heritage Site infoxbox to include "location".

I have also done one based on the Historic Site infobox from Studenica monastery. I personally prefer the first one as you get more detail in it and it looks better, however i can accept either.

{{Geobox|Protected Area}}

Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast
The Giant's Causeway
Location	County Antrim, Northern Ireland
Coordinates	55°14′27″N 6°30′42″W
UNESCO World Heritage Site
Official name	The Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast
Type	Natural
Criteria	vii, viii
Designated	1986 (10th session)
Reference no.	369
State Party	United Kingdom
Region	Europe and North America

I am happy with either. Probably prefer the 2nd one as United Kingdom is mentioned twice in first template, but then there is more geo physical info. Could you remove state from the geo box and go with that?Factocop (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The changes to both infoboxes (above/right) look fine to me. Happy to support an update which reflects: "State/State Party" = "UK", "Location" = "County Antrim, NI". Guliolopez (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

fine with both of those too. The top one looks best though, "state party" seems an odd phrase. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Note - I actually think both should be there. As today. Though obviously the lower one shouldn't have the pic. Also, "State party" is UNESCO's term. (It's their politically correct term for dealing with this type of thing) The label needs to remain as such in the lower box, and should likely use the full form "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" as listed on UNESCO site. Guliolopez (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The second smaller infobox under the main one in the article at present is not needed. Its pure tautology and needless as everything mentioned in it is mentioned in the UNESCO section of the main infobox. The only thing missing is the state party line - but that would be implicit with the "State: United Kingdom" line in the proposed one. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the top box agree with BW "State party" seems odd. Mo ainm~Talk 11:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus for change here and that either of two templates is acceptable. I had made an edit to remove Northern Ireland rather than have it remain as it was - demoted to region. Can someone make the change to either of the 2 templates?Homebirdni (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This convo seems ancient but I've applied the infobox that seems to be the most popular. Hope no one minds ;).CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus, vote was made invald by socks. And then a "new" user comes along and makes the two edits, one above and one below proposed and supported by these socks after a year. Re-run anyone? Murry1975 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I simply applied the infobox that neither confirmed or unconfirmed the status of Northern Ireland and in agreement with Mo_aimn and BritishWatcher. The infobox is factually correct from what I can see and does not cause offense to anyone. It just seems like I am the first user to come along and implement the choice of infobox. Why open old wounds? If you have been watching this page, why have you not piped in sooner Murry1975?CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit is not inline with the template for that infobox (state does not mean soveriegn state but state as in administrative state, eg Alaska). What wounds? You are the one who edited a year after the discussion closed, without a change to the stable version. Murry1975 (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read above discussion. thanks,CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The UNESCO box discussion? My edit did not effect that. Murry1975 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Murry1975, please please read the above. There are 2 infoboxes up for discussion and I have implemented the infobox which appears to of been the most favourable. Stating NI is a region is POV and was removed for that reasion so that the page was neutral. The edit you made was not in line with either of the 2 suggestions.Please read above fully and in its entirety as I have to grasp this topic fully. thanks, And please stop calling my Factocop as it is really annoying. You would not like it if I accused you of being a sock.CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Statng it is anything can be POV, but the template edits you made were not agreed on and as a sock of Factocop, you are now blocked. I am not shocked. Murry1975 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does this infobox still still have Northern Ireland as a "region" in spite of the above? In line with the new, ludicrously neutral intro of Northern Ireland (a "part"), this ought to be altered. — JonC^ॐ 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Re-Proposal

Re-opening proposal which comes from the following UNESCO heritage site article; Studenica monastery. Why don't we just simply state instead of State party/country/region/constituent country etc. etc. one of the following simple input:

• A - Location: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom or
• B - Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
• C - Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland
• D - Location: County Antrim, United Kingdom

A simple solution to avoid troublesoome terms?

Plus vote on template, either the green or yellow one from above.

I would prefer, as before C and yellow. Factocop (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A or B, going by what the other articles do, and the yellow one - personnally the green appears old-fashioned. Murry1975 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok Ill add this today. B and yellow seems to work.Factocop (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the top example to the right is the best way of doing it: State: United Kingdom. Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland. Nothing controversial in that. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with both but prefer the yellow one,as with Murry, the green one looks dated.Factocop (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the bottom, yellow one for consistency with other world heritage site articles. "State party" seems to be the way it's usually done. — Jon C.^ॐ 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

State party I like as with Unesco, they dont get involved in politics and so list members as State Party. So in theory SeaLand could become a state party despite being a self goverend off shore platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factocop (talk • contribs) 09:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Anymore input?Factocop (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've applied the yellow template exactly as it is above.

I've left the location as C - Location: County Antrim, Northern Ireland, and kept United Kingdom in State party which I hope will keep Murry and Jon C happy, though not sure Mabuska will agree with the template choice. Its a start anyway.Factocop (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Thank God that's over! It's only been, what, two years? — Jon C.^ॐ 16:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Highness

Scenes from the latetest film - Your Highness, were shot at the Giants Causeway.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1240982/

It could be worth mentioning....Homebirdni (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added a new section on 'Film and Television' and noted 'Your Highness'. Feel free to add to the section. I've a feeling 'Game of Thrones' was filmed there also.CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. Apologies for not picking up this earlier, but we've had a debate (see notes above from 2007 and 2009) about trivia references before. And the consensus outcome was not to put trivia/pop-culture references in the article. (Every fanboy felt it was worth adding every passing reference in every TV show/book/etc ever written. To the extent that the trivia section was so large and full of irrelevant and fleeting references that it impacted the quality of the article. Hence the decision was to avoid trivia references entirely.) In keeping with that consensus, I've reverted the section again. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

ohh sorry, I've just posted on your page. Ahh I understand. Ill leave it as it is then. thanks,CodSaveTheQueen (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter?

Did I see this in one of the Harry Potter movies? 76.106.149.108 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Giant's Causeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071107063242/http://giantcrystals.strahlen.org/europe/basalt.htm to http://giantcrystals.strahlen.org/europe/basalt.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928071442/http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/vulcan/16.shtml to http://www.lindahall.org/events_exhib/exhibit/exhibits/vulcan/16.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://giantcrystals.strahlen.org/europe/basalt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giant's Causeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120706035642/http://www.u.tv/News/Causeway-centre-gives-creationist-view/530750a4-b3bb-4c0e-baf1-4cc65e7e6652 to http://www.u.tv/News/Causeway-centre-gives-creationist-view/530750a4-b3bb-4c0e-baf1-4cc65e7e6652

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hbh

Nashdhdududududjdjxnxnd 182.66.135.212 (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)