Template talk:Irish states since 1171

WikiProject Ireland (Rated Template-class)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Free Derry

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)

It would have as much validity as RoC and RoM. --sony-youthtalk 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but is is nonsense to suggest that Londonderry was an independent state for any period of time. Henry Parrteson's book states that "by August 15th, 'Free Derry' has effectively ceded from the Northern state". Note the word effective. What were 'Free Derry's borders? What was its system of government? What was head of state?Traditional unionist 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It is STILL nonsense to say that 'Free Derry' was a state.Traditional unionist 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

Northern Ireland

Some questions regarding the recent changes to Northern Ireland in this template:

  • Did Northern Ireland cease to be a sate in 1972?
    • If so, could it be considered a state from 1972 to present?
    • Or, was it subsumed once into the UK state?
  • Should the recent changes to Northern Ireland be considered as the creation of a new state?
    • If so, is 1998 the stating point for this state?

--sony-youthtalk 20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Devolved Northern Ireland House of Commons and Senate setup by the partition of Ireland in 1920/21 was disolved by the British government and direct rule return to Westminster, so it was a change in the constitutional status in that regard.--padraig3uk 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland has had continuous recognition since the Government of Ireland Act. AFAIK it was never given a legal title such as 'state', but that would also mean that the legal term for what type of entity it is exactly has not been changed - only the method of governance has altered.

I don't see why the Northern Ireland link should be split into 2, especially since one points to NI and the other to the NI House of Commons. This seems inconsistent with the others, particularly Southern Ireland which links to Southern Ireland rather than Parliament of Southern Ireland or similar. beano 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the first link to Parliament of Northern Ireland.--padraig3uk 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
That still doesn't alter the fact that a) The Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland links are inconsistent and b) Northern Ireland was created in 1921 and runs to the present day. A new state was not created, the method of governance of an existing one was changed. beano 15:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In 1921 the British Government Setup both the Southern Ireland House of Commons and the Northern Ireland House of Commons, the southern one only met twice, the first time only 4 or 5 members attended and the second time was a formality to endorse the Anglo-Irish Treaty, but only after this was passed in Dáil Éireann first. The Northern Ireland HOC existed until 1972 when it was disolved, and direact rule was restored to Westminster.--padraig3uk 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case then no new state was set-up in NI after 1972 so the order should read: "Southern Ireland | Northern Ireland | Irish Free State." There is no need for dates, they don't appear for any of the others.
Now point 2: was a new state set up in 1998 or was this the reinstatement of a suspended state?

When power was transfered back to the Assembly recently it was reported at the time that the UK would temporaraly lose control of NI until the Assembly was restablished under the executive. If that was the case then it is resonable to assume that when the Stormont Government was disolved in 1972, that power went from the devolved NIHOC to Westminster. In much the same way as the power transfered from the Irish Free State to the Republic of Ireland which we treat as two seperate entities.--padraig3uk 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - in that case I suggest that it's misleading to present there having been two states called NI between 1921 and now - if there was only one, then there was only one. There is also no need for dates after it. When the assembly meets and if it presents itself as a wholly different state to that disolved in 1972 (as is the case with the Free State and the 1937 constitution, but not the Republic of Ireland) then we can add that also. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland at various times is well explained in that article. What say you? --sony-youthtalk 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sony-youth, my main objection is to the use of the Ulster banner for Northern Ireland after 1972, when the NIHOC ceased to exist, either we remove all the flags from the template, or we use the outline image of NI instead of the flag.--padraig3uk 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The template is for states, not places. If Northern Ireland (the state) had a flag then it is irrevelent if Northern Ireland (the place) has or has not have a flag today. Its entry here is for that state as is clear from the title of the template. --sony-youthtalk 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
But Northern Ireland the State never had a flag, the flag was of the Government that was disbanded and disolved in 1972/3 therefore since the flag only applies upto that date, it can't be used afterwards to present either government or state.--padraig3uk 00:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
So, let's break down what you are saying: 1. there was a Irish state known as Northern Ireland; 2. it is a historical state; 3. it ceased to be in 1973; 4. it's flag was the Ulster Banner (the difference between it being the flag of the state or the government of that state is a trivial technicality).
Cool. So we can use that flag to represent that state on this template? --sony-youthtalk 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Only from 1921-72, after 1972 no flag should be used, so we then have two links for Northern Ireland one with the flag 1921-72, one without the flag, or one link and no flag for the whole period of 1921-present.--padraig3uk 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
So what state succeeded Northern Ireland in 1972? I thought it was ruled directly from the UK i.e. no state? --sony-youthtalk 00:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was under direct rule, it didn't have a flag therefore the ulster banner shouldn't be used.--padraig3uk 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
And neither should a non-state be listed here. So I'm taking it out. --sony-youthtalk 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I am removing the flag as this flag dosent represent the state.--padraig3uk 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A few facts:
  • Northern Ireland has existed for 86yrs
  • from 1921-53 it had no flag, thats 32yrs
  • from 1953-72 the Government used the UB 19yrs
  • from 1972-present it has no flag thats 35yrs.
So for 68yrs out of 86yrs it never had a flag in use.--padraig3uk 01:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm stunned at how pathetic this has become. I knew this was going to boil down to some petty attempt to remove the flag - it's the only possible reason for having the two separate entries for Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland was ever a 'state' it was from 21-72, thereafter it was a region of the UK, so unless you're going to add years for all the other states, NI should stay with the NI flag. beano 03:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing POV is not pathetic, this flag dosent represent Northern Ireland and shouldn't be used unless it is refering to the period 1921-72. WP is suppose to presents facts.--padraig3uk 03:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardraig, you have once again removed the official flag of Northern Ireland at the time that that state was disolved. This was the flag that the former state of Northern Ireland choose to use to represent itself. If you do not like this flag in real-life, that is your prerogative, but your personal dislike of it has no place here. I'll remind you that this is a template, changes made here affect many different pages. Please try to act responsibly, with consensus, and true to the facts. --sony-youthtalk 07:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But that flag dosent represent Northern Ireland from 1972 onwards, so you should have two entries for NI, are you saying this flag now represents the Northern Ireland Assembly today when the flag can't even be flown from government buildings.--padraig3uk 10:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No, Padraig, what I am saying is that this template is for states. If NI was not a state post-72 then an entry for NI post 1972 does not belong here. If you are unhappy about the link pointing to the current Northern Ireland article then why don't you go about making a new article specifically about the state of NI during the years 1921-72, along the same lines as the other historic states in the template. The template could run something link:
... Irish Republic | Southern Ireland | Northern Ireland | Irish Free State ...
Does this sound like a fair comprimise? Personally, I think it would also be more informative, but I would also like to hear some Unionist perspective on it before going ahead. --sony-youthtalk 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good solution, and be more factual then the current setup.--padraig3uk 11:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy of post requesting comment made to NI talk page:

Coming out of the discussion on talk page for the "Template:Irish states since 1171" template, a proposal has been made to create an article specifically about Northern Ireland as a state during the period 1921-72. This could be located at [[Northern Ireland (state, 1921-72)] or something along the same lines. I am in favour, as it another editor, but I would especially like to hear some Unionist perspective on this.
The amended template would run something like as follows:
... Irish Republic | Southern Ireland | Northern Ireland | Irish Free State ...
Specifically, I would like to know, if it would be suitable to add a new entry for Northern Ireland for post-1998, which presumably would link here (with no flag, I suppose, although I would be in favour of using the assembly logo in this specific case.) The reasoning for this is because that template is specifically for "states", which implies someform of self-governance.

--sony-youthtalk 11:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ragardless of merits, fair use rule would preclude the use of the assembly logo on any template! 07:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Northern Ireland constitutionally not much different now to in 1922. It is daft to split it into 2, or to have an end date. And what about all the times between 1972 and present when the local government has started and stopped? Jonto 17:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not now, nor has it ever been, a state. It is a constituant part of the state of the United Kingdom, a self governing part, but has never been a state.Traditional unionist 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Free Derry

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)

The starry Plough could be an alternative.--padraig3uk 06:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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! 07:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

Padraig, your nit-picking with the NI flag and it's unofficial status while suggesting flags for a non-state that never actually had a flag is a significant inconsistency. 14:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

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) 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)

Proposed redesign

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)

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)
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)
OK, I did up a version with the UK today in it, see here. --sony-youthpléigh 07:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
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)


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)
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)

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))
Its an issue with Firefox. I'm trying to fix it. --sony-youthpléigh 18:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the official name should be used for Ireland, being Republic of Ireland as is the case for all official language of the state within Wikipedia. --Cka4004 17:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Might I suggest trying a version without the flags? It seems to me that they add more clutter than illumination. "Free Derry" is very problematic and will cause edit wars. --Red King 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrific graphic, Sony-youth! I agree with the above that it's a bit large for a footer, but I would suggest putting it on the Irish states since 1171 page in place of the template. It would illustrate that article really nicely.
Two related comments: the state of Northern Ireland has existed continuously from 1921 to the present, even in the years when it did not have a legislative assembly, so (a) there should not be a gap for the direct-rule period (1972-1998), and (b) the beginning of Nortern Ireland (and Southern Ireland) should be pushed to the right (or the Irish Republic pushed to the left). I'm on IE7 so it's not a browser issue.
btw Free Derry is in the current template, so I would leave it.
Scolaire 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I made the changes suggested. I agree that it is prob unsuitable for a footer. So I'll make it a template and lob it into the Irish States article. --sony-youthpléigh 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Better still Sony! Complex, but so is history. Facts should not be lost in pursuit of style; not that it doesn't look good. (Sarah777 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC))


In the infobox, why is NI split - ie 1921–1972 Northern Ireland and since 1998 Northern Ireland? Reading the above, it seems it was agreed that NI has existed as a state since 1921. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainly to appease those that insist on using the Ulster banner to represent Northern Ireland today.--padraig3uk 16:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, it's to appease those who insist on removing the Northern Ireland flag from Northern Ireland entries outside this time. beano 16:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
In any case, it looks like one's appeased and the other is pleased that they are appeased. --sony-youthpléigh 13:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I made the links clearer with 1922-72 linking to the Parliament of Northern Ireland and 1972-present linking to Northern Ireland.--Padraig 14:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of this template is nonsense. Northern Ireland has never been a state, neither has "Free Derry".Traditional unionist 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the "Declared states and extra-judicial areas" section is bumkum, but it does no real harm - but splitting hairs over whether Northern Ireland was/is a state is even more bunkum. The sum total of reserved matters kept from the original Northern Ireland ammounted to little more than the running of the postal service and the design of stamps. Northern Ireland had more sovereignty in 1921 than the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland enjoy today. --sony-youthpléigh 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A state has military power to defend itself from invasion. A state is autonomous in all areas, as the UK is todasy, even if it has chosen to delegate responsibility to the EU.Traditional unionist 14:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I can think of 50 states in North America that would no longer exist had what you just posted an grain of truth. --sony-youthpléigh 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
They aren't states in this sense of the word. They are exacvtaly the same as Northern Ireland and Scotland, save for thier autonomy is constitutional and not statutory. That is not a comparison.Traditional unionist 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Northern Ireland's (and Scotland's) status is constitutionally-based. The UK does not have a codified constitution, nor do changes require the support of referenda, but it does very definitely have a constitution. This is a very common misconception, but, considering that you are British and, going by your username and articles that I have seen you edit, interested in the politics of your country, it is unfortunate that you make this basic mistake also. If you would like a constitution that is codified, and requires the approval of referenda before changes are made, I know of another state that will take you ... --sony-youthpléigh 16:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
. I am perfectly aware of the detail of the constitution of my country, I have made no "mistake". It is you who tried to equate states in the USA to nation states, a mistake. I also cannot see the relevance of your entire comment above.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
"They [the US states] are exactly the same as Northern Ireland and Scotland ..." - this was the only comparison made between the US states and anything else. You made it. You should be aware that there is a distinction between a nation state and other forms of states - a nation state being a specific kind of state. You say that I "tried to equate states in the USA to nation states ..." Where?
Northern Ireland is not a nation state, but nowhere does this template imply that Northern Ireland is. I think you're having difficulty. --sony-youthpléigh 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The concept of a state being anything other than a nation state is almost exclusively the preserve of federal systems such as the USA. It is therefore nonsense to call Northern Ireland a state, it is not and never had been. Therefore it is a fair assumption to make, that this discussion is about nation state autonomous in all matters, such as the UK. This is why brining the states of the American union into the discussion was not helpful, and has led to this. Most of this template is nonsense and should not remain.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, what ever about the ins-and-out of what can be called a state, the template makes sense. I absolutely agree that the "Declared states and extra-judicial areas" is bunk. The "See also" is more like short-lived things (Irish Republic should be swung over there IMHO). Northern Ireland has a place here, but if we are to be strict, it is the UK, but Northern Ireland should certainly be linked from here. If the word "state" is offensive, then what would you use in its place, and if the UK was linked (with Northern Ireland as a sub) would "state" be okay by you? Like the following: --sony-youthpléigh 23:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, conflict is a positive. And here we have an example, we have arrived at something. There is something to be said for a link to an article on Northern Ireland's devolved institutions 1921-1973 in the see also part though.....is there a suitable article?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC):

There is a link Northern_Ireland_1921-72 from the politics of Northern Ireland 1922-72 template, but it currently redirects to the History of Northern Ireland article.--Padraig (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I radically updated the template. I used the link to the the Parliament of Northern Ireland that was already in there. I think a proper Northern Ireland 1922-72 article would be preferable, but I suppose a genuine "history" would be (or will turn out to be) 1922-2007. --sony-youthpléigh 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Irish states since 1171 Irish states since 1171

Edit War

Seems to me perhaps some should be discussing this.....Traditional unionist (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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)
The Confederacy should also be moved up. The Commonwealth wasn't an "Irish State". Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
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)

Correction to template

I have fixed an error here and ask Snappy not to start edit-warring. The previous version implied superior status for Ireland as part of the UK 1919-1922 rather then the democratically declared Republic. Obvious POV. Sarah777 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, it takes two people to make an edit war, and you have been reverting on this issue since March. There are two POVs here, depending on different views of how to assess both the legitimacy of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and the practical effect of the Declaration of Independence. That debate involves all sorts of issues such the degree of international recognition for the new republic (and the importance of that recognition), and the extent to which the new republic was a de facto state.
One of the problems with infoboxes is that it is very difficult to use them to accommodate complex and disputed issues such as this, and doesn't help at all for anyone involved to simply refer to an "obvious error". Please discuss this issue, and try to reach an agreement on some mechanism which allows the infobox to acknowledge the different interpretations of this period of history? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
BHG; There are two POVs here. Only one is consistent with WP:NPOV. Giving precedence of the British POV over the democratically expressed decision of the people is simply not acceptable. Maybe scrap the template? Sarah777 (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The democratic wish of the Irish people is neither here nor there on wikipedia - my understanding is that the Southern Irish MPs were refused entry to Parliament in 1921 or 22, that is the date of "independence" surely (except there was no independence until 1949, but thats a broader debate).Traditional unionist (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On going edit war

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)

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)
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)
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)

Sarah, it takes two to edit war, and you and Snappy are both edit-warring. Both of you please stop, and discuss this for as long as it takes to reach a consensus, or else there are likely to be formal eedit-warring warnings and blocks before long. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Nominated for deletion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Right so. Snappy56 (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag removal

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)

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)