Template talk:Irish states since 1171

message: Shouldn't Free Derry be added to the list of "See also" at the bottom of the template on this article? ie Confederate Ireland | Republic of Connaught | Éire | Northern Ireland | Republic of Munster
Free Derry was a de facto independent state like the Republic of Connacht, etc. It lasted around a year, so maybe it should be added? Republoic of Wexford as well?
Any opinions? Derry Boi 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have as much validity as RoC and RoM. --sony-youthtalk 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is STILL nonsense to say that 'Free Derry' was a state.Traditional unionist 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a bad way of putting it, I'll have a think about it over the next couple of days.Traditional unionist 22:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Derry

message: Is the Tricolour the best emblem to represent Derry? I tried , but reduced to , it looks like Cra not very good. There are so many tricolours in this template, they seem to lose their distinctiveness!
: Please sign your comments. I agree though, I realise Free Derry was republican in outlook/ethos or whatever, but I don't think the tricolour is appropriate. It wasn't annexed by the Republic, it was supposedly autonomous. beano 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definietly an idea along the right lines, however, I would associate the plough with the IRSM, although whether this would have been true 35 years ago is a different mater! 86.12.249.63 07:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The starry Plough is the flag of Republican Socialists not the IRSM, its useage pre-dates them and is from ISRP setup by James Connolly.--padraig3uk 16:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Ulster Banner is a sectarian flag used to represent Loyalist extremists, it was never the flag of Northern Ireland as a state.--padraig3uk 16:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  81.154.60.248 is right. You're proposing a flag for a non-state that never had a flag of any description.  I wouldn't say that that is necessarily wrong, but terribly inconsistent with your view on the Northern Ireland flag. beano 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Derry

message: I'm proposing to change the template to a design similar to what's below. I'm not presenting this as the "final" design, but would like to hear other editors opinion on it. --sony-youthpléigh 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, just seen that there is an issue with Firefox/Camino - the Irish Republic is shown as occuring just after Southern Ireland (although the 1916 and 1921 dates for each still match up on the timeline). This issue only effects Firefox/Camino, but I will see what the problem is a fix it. --sony-youthpléigh 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and a question for other editors is whether a "box" for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should run in parallel to Northern Ireland from 1922 onwards (connecting with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.) --sony-youthpléigh 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did up a version with the UK today in it, see here. --sony-youthpléigh 07:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, the template without the UKGBNI is see here. Inlcuding UKGBNI is factually more correct, I believe. --sony-youthpléigh 08:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the idea SY, but it looks terribly compliated and is too big to be included as a footer on other pages.  Maybe the timeline could have an entry of its own? beano 11:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it might be a bit too busy to be used as a footer, but I think it's great aside from that.  Well done!  Dppowell 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad. I think the Irish Republic 1916 - 1921 needs to be pushed back a bit into UK 1801 - 1921, as it was in existence before either NI or 'Southern Ireland', and ended at the same point as the UK of GB&I. (Sarah777 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an issue with Firefox. I'm trying to fix it. --sony-youthpléigh 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Except that the official name for the state is Ireland - as recognised internationally and through mutual agreement between the British and Irish governments. --sony-youthpléigh 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed redesign 

message: Seems to me perhaps some should be discussing this.....Traditional unionist (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My two euro cents is that the Irish Republic belongs in the See also section. If the Commonwealth (de facto, de jure and internationally recognised) and the Confederacy (internationally recognised and supported, de facto and de jure in to an extent) can happily rest in this section then the Irish Republic (not internationally recognised, not de jure, but de facto) can. --sony-youthpléigh 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Confederacy should also be moved up. The Commonwealth wasn't an "Irish State". Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that any changes are necessary to the template. Keep as of Dec 2007. Snappy56 (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: Firstly, I'm not going to dignify that above section with a response in it. The tone of User:Sarah777 leaves a lot to be desired. She has been conducted a slow edit war over the past few months, and recently has been claimed to be "corrected the template" which had and "obvious error", obvious error, my arse! Why don't you call a spade a spade and state that your pushing your POV. My position remains the same as previously stated by Sony-youth; "If the Commonwealth (de facto, de jure and internationally recognised) and the Confederacy (internationally recognised and supported, de facto and de jure in to an extent) can happily rest in this section then the Irish Republic (not internationally recognised, not de jure, but de facto) can.". The consenus reached was to leave the template with Irish Republic in See also section. It's also quite obvious that Sarah777 has no interest in discussing this issue. Snappy56 (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please watch WP:CIVIL Snappy. There is no "consensus" except in your mind. This is a simple issue of writing the article from a WP:NPOV perspective. And I'm sorry BHG but it is getting difficult to WP:AFG with an editor who obviously doesn't do so himself. Whatever about the "tone" of my comments your abusive personal attacks certainly not only leave a lot to be desired but breach WP:CIVIL. Sarah777 (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww, petal, I didn't realise you were such a wilting flower! Can you read my mind? I don't think so! I don't think you can lecture me on civility, I may be blunt but I am not uncivil. How many times have you been blocked for incivility again? Snappy56 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never - in any legitimate way - only by warring Admins. I note you are still edit-warring and inserting POV @ the template. And again I ask you to heed WP:CIVIL. You are trying my patience here. Sarah777 (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I certainly wouldn't like to see Snappy blocked for his edit-warring. I'd be content if he'd just stop. Sarah777 (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On going edit war

message: In view of the apparent impossibility of agreeing any way of structuring this template to reflect WP:NPOV, I have nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 12#Template:Irish_states_since_1171. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think proposing it for deletion is a little OTT. I've made a change which adds 'Notable declared states' group (it was there before - check history). I hope this is an acceptable compromise. Snappy56 (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish to re-nominate this for deletion; the Irish Republic 1919 - 1922 must be given equal status as the UK and the Free State. Irish sovereignty is not determined by British Law. Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no republic until 1949.  No other state recognised an independent Ireland until well after 1921.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only been over 6 weeks since this template was nominated for deletion and the result was keep. Just because the debate didn't have the outcome you wanted, doesn't mean you can keep nominating it until you get your way. Try to be grown up about it and accept the result of the debate, instead re-started a very old debate with very old clichés. Snappy56 (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination process wasn't completed, was it? Please bear in mind WP:CIVIL when inaccurately describing my comments as a "very old debate with very old clichés" and please do not not imply I am not "grown-up". I could characterise your views on maintaining a pov-embedded template in all sorts of uncivil ways but am refraining from so doing. I hope I don't have to extend you a formal warning in this regard. Also, I am not nominating the template for deletion "Just because the debate didn't have the outcome you wanted" (pl remember WP:AGF) but rather because the current version is a mess of flagcruft and is inaccurate and pov ridden. Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean the nomination process wasn't completed? BHG did it, are you suggesting she did something wrong?! And there you go again with the WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL when anyone says something you don't agree with. Always a bit rich coming from a user who has been blocked around 10 times for incivility. A debate was had, the outcome was to keep, you view was in the minority, please respect the majority view. Nothing has changed since the last debate to merit a re-nomination, it's just your refusal to accept the outcome, and if you hope that you will get your way by attrition then you hope in vain. You also just want to delete the template and offer no compromise suggestions. I added the 'Notable declared states' section which moved the Irish Republic out of the 'See also' category to this. Also, I think you should re-read WP:CONSENSUS. Snappy56 (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd again remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Any further breaches and I will have to draw somebody's attention to it. Now, could you show me the diffs I requested, please? Sarah777 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right so. Snappy56 (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion 

message: I've removed all the flags, some are correct, some seem like WP:OR. I think the template looks better like this. Comments? Snappy56 (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's safer. Where there is no clearly defined or agreed flag, it's best not to include anything. Otherwise (as you note) we tempt OR or "interpretation". If for consistency this means removing all flags, then that's probably best. Guliolopez (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag removal