Talk: Ireland
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
Discussion prior to Ireland becoming Irish collaboration of the week moved to Talk:Ireland/archive1
| - add to watchlist | ||
|
Articles to be summarized as sections To be expanded Needed
| ||
| Contents |
Archived talk
I've moved the old talk page to an archive in anticipation of using the talk page during collaboration week. If I shouldn't have done that, commence yelling at me now. —Rory ☺ 17:10, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
list of topics
- A recent list of topics has appeared after the Literature and the arts section (most likely with good intentions) - I think this should be removed or moved to other relevant articles (i.e. those in the form Main article: XXX of Ireland linked under the headings) - the List of Ireland-related topics is a more appropriate place for these links - otherwise it is a matter of time before the article and list begin to compete and everything irish gets bunged into the bottom of the article - i rememeber before the list of ireland-related topics was created (i created it) and every article that had the name "ireland" in it had a haphazard list of duplicated items - the ireland articles should not return to this and should just be paragraphs, pictures and links and no lists of topics Djegan 19:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, removed it. What should we do with the footnote and some photos sections? Filiocht 07:57, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd favour removing the footnote and the photos section. Some or all of those photos should still be used in the article at relevant places, but not in a dedicated photo section. —Rory ☺ 11:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, and am about to remove the footnote, the photos can wait until there is more article to use them on, I think. Filiocht 11:12, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd favour removing the footnote and the photos section. Some or all of those photos should still be used in the article at relevant places, but not in a dedicated photo section. —Rory ☺ 11:07, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, removed it. What should we do with the footnote and some photos sections? Filiocht 07:57, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Put back the beautiful satellite photo!
That satellite picture is beautiful, and perfect for this article. The new map with physicial features and text is not very attractive. I'm not saying it should be deleted, but the first picture at the top of Ireland should be the satellite photo. Evertype 15:59, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
- It's difficult fitting it all in! I hope the current arrangement is satisfactory though! zoney ♣ talk 17:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was all much better before that labelled map got put in. I'd revert to that; the labelled map can go on the Geography page. Evertype 22:27, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's all OK for now. The current labelled map is actually a replacement for the full scale labelled map that was originally inserted. zoney ♣ talk 22:49, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think it rather untidy. I remember previous versions being lovely. Evertype 23:29, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
Ulster Scots
With all due respect, do we really need that Airlann? There are more Chinese speakers in Ulster than Scots or Irish speakers. Evertype 23:31, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)
- Agreed, only terms with an official recognised status should be used - an article is not the place for every translation of a term- in such cases link to (or start) a wikipedia project in that language for the article. Djegan 09:41, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Ulster Scots does indeed have an "official recognised status". I see nothing wrong with having two translations listed, especially since both Irish and Ulster Scots are recognised under the Belfast Agreement. This article is about the whole island, remember?--Kwekubo 23:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- My opinion of Ulster-scots, is, well, low. But regardless I think having it there is a bit pointless - its not a language spoken by even a measurable amount of people in the country. And under the GFA its only Partially recognised and not Fully recognised anyway Kiand 23:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Which of the two translations are official, this is what is important? The words "Eire" and "Erin" mean the same thing - "Ireland" but one is official whilst the other is not and this term has a sense of nostalgia about it and would be inappropriate for any professional article - lets not include a term just for the sake of completeness. Similarily in the Northern Ireland article which translation is official, if any? Djegan 23:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Airlann is made up nonsense. Its a phonetically dubious spelling of Ireland. Any Ulster Scots speaker would pronounce Ireland as they do in their accent. Reduction of nd to n is wide-spread in Ulster English, the quality of the initial diphthong no doubt differs from area to area. None of this can linguistically justify the spelling Airlann - except in a rather sad attempt to imply Ulster Scots differs from English more than it really does. No Ulster English speakers feel the need to write Eyerlann. Gregg gave the phonetic transcription ['@irl@n] (Sampa) for Ulster Scots speakers in Antrim. Looks very much like the local accent for Ireland.
This article does not deal with the Irish state or Northern Ireland, but with the whole island of Ireland. I personally find the status of Ulster Scots dubious, but following an NPOV it must be said that the Belfast Agreement is the only really relevant piece of legislation with regard to the officiality of Ulster Scots and Irish on an all-island basis. That Agreement gave rise directly to the rendering 'Airlann', which is used in official contexts; therefore, it may be taken as an official name for this purpose. --Kwekubo 22:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Does the agreement really give any officialness on either language, i have read it but have yet to find the form of words that gives effect? With the greatest of respect it is very easy for agreements to vaguely word to "respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity...all of which are part of the cultural wealth" but this, in itself, does not not place any official status on either language. Theirfore i must conclude that their has not been as of yet evidence of officiality in any part of Britain or Ireland. Djegan 23:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hoots Mon
Great Britain v. Britain
Great Britain is the full correct name of the island. In this context Britain sounds unencyclopediac. In case anyone is not aware the "Great" part is there for complicated historical reasons and is not a claim that it is a "great" or nice place to live. 213.202.166.65 23:07, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Great Britain is not imperialistic, but comes from the fact that the whole Hiberno-Britannic archipelago was originally called Britannia by the Romans, and Great Britain was the largest out of the islands. See Great Britain. --Kwekubo 23:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Irish
I removed the paragraph "as Gaeilge", as this is the English Wikipedia, so anything beyond a phrase or word or two of another language is too much. There is actually an Irish-language Wikipedia. If someone wants to merge what they can from the text below into ga:Éire they can.
- Ainmníter Éire uaireanta "Oileán an Smaragaid". Ta Inis Fóla (no Éireann) suite siar o Mór- roinn na hEorpa, agus in aice leis an Breatain Mór. Is "Inis Fóla", (Éireann as gaeilge, Airlann as Scots na hUladh) an tríu oileán is mór sa hEorpa. Ta sé ar an taobh thiar den farraige gaelach cóngarach leis an Bhreatain Mor. Ta se comhdeanta as Poblacht na hÉirinn sa deisceart is 'an Tuaisceart', ceantar den Ríoga Aontaithe. Is daonra na hOileáin 5.6 milliúin daoine. Sháraigh Daonra na Poblachta 4 milliúin le déanai don cead uair o 1871, mar gheall ar inimirce agus ráta nís airde bhreithe.
