Well done on getting this up and going, Counter and Trad, it's well needed and I wish it all the best. Whatever I can contribute with, be sure I'll give my best to it. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've adapted Template:WikiProject Kent (as it has features for both assessment and quality) and created Template:WikiProject Unionism. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have lost the photo of Carson from userbox, &c. Who's done that? Replace it with one of the PMs, maybe Brookeborough would be good, or Craigavon. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the photo Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume that was done in good faith and out of a deep concern for upholding IP Law. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, we now need a new photo! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I fail to see how it could be done in bad faith seeing as it was violating Wikipedia policy, anyway hope you get a new photo. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No doubt. Thanks, I've put one of Brookeborough in. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Basilbrookeborough.jpg is also a non free image. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Would Image:Carson signing Solemn League and Covenant.jpg be usable? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit cluttered. There must be a free Image of Carson. Failing that we could just use the union flag.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should use the union flag until a better image is found.--Padraig (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants Craigavon, he seems to be about the only Unionist figure with an image that I can find on Wikimedia Commons: Image:James Craig Viscount Craigavon.jpg. But it doesn't quite scream "Unionism" to me. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put the Union Jack in the project template for now as it seems to be the best image available that we can actually use for this. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What about ? a bit more region specific, and would allow it to stand out from UK projects Fasach Nua (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that primarily used as a "neutral flag" for all Ireland (at least by Unionists themselves) rather than a flag symbolising the Union itself? Timrollpickering (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely right but it is an emblem almost exlusively used by unionists, what about , the union flag just seems too generic Fasach Nua (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The harp is very small in the previous, another emblem might be, , although im not keen on it, however if as the anon suggests the uncoolness is major plank of unionism, a square may be in order  :-P Fasach Nua (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the sidebox on Unionism in Ireland also resorts to the Union Jack for its main image. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking through the pd templates, particularly Template:PD-UK, any UK image that is from an unkown author that is more than 50 years old, or any image that the author died more than 50 years ago is available under a free licence. This would seem to put virtually all imagaes from the formative years of Irish unionism in the public domain, surely an image of Carson, or some other iconic unionist image shouldnt be hard to find under these terms. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There should be some images available under that provision, but I believe that {{PD-UK}} is incorrect - the information we have on the subject at Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988#Duration of copyright states that it should be seventy years, and Commons:Template:PD-UK-unknown gives some additional restrictions, which should probably appear on the PD-UK template here. Although there should be plenty of relevant photographs taken before 1938, many of the photographers will have lived until 1938 or later, and unless we can show that the identity of an unknown photographer cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry, we can't rely on that provision, either. Warofdreams talk 16:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just while we are on the topic, murals are another source of images, relevant to this project. I have never seen anything definitive either way regarding licensing of images of UK murals, anyone have a reference? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My last try 60px?

I'm currently trying to create the various categories and technical pages for the project, largely duplicating the WP:KENT set-up since I used that template as a starting point. Can someone take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism/Assessment and have a go at refining the copy&paste guidelines while I focus on the technical side? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Before this really gets going, can I ask if Unionism really the best name for the project? Would Irish Unionism or Unionism in Ireland or Unionism (Ireland) not be better? Unionism on it's own, to me, and I suspect to an international audience, would mean trade unionism.

What is the support like for a quick move before we really start kicking things off? --sony-youth^pléigh 19:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It definitely needs clarification. Unionism (Ireland) would be fine. Valenciano (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick search of Wikipedia indicates to me that no such clarification is required.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I get completely different results on Google - all deal with trade unionism (link). --sony-youth^pléigh 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree,with Trad. Unionist, but wouldn't hold any real objection to a move such as "Unionism in Ireland". --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, a project on wider UK unionism would be related but different to this one. Perhaps we should move it.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Unionism in Ireland would be a good name.--Padraig (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be Irish Unionism or Unionism (Ireland)Traditional unionist (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unionism (Ireland) could lead to the same problem with confusion with trade unionism, whereas Unionism in Ireland would cover Unionism prior to 1921.--Padraig (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the project plans to cover UK wide unionism it should be moved. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If enough time has passed to get a solid consensus on this, I'm going to move it to Unionism in Ireland on the ground that that was a pretty popular choice above and is the name of the "mother article". --sony-youth^pléigh 22:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done the move, but a strange thing happened. The articles are still in Category:WikiProject Unionism articles, but some are now in Category:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland articles. For example even though the Talk:Billy Hutchinson says he's a "WikiProject Unionism article" he is in fact a "WikiProject Unionism in Ireland article". Maybe this is just a weird server cache thing. Any ideas? --sony-youth^pléigh 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorted.--Padraig (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So everything is now in Category:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland articles? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Should be, if you find any that aren't purge your cache to see if that clears it, if not let me know and I will look into it.--Padraig (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Unionists are tremendously uncool. Up the 'ra and all that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.90.220 (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, this project aims to produce articles about unionism and unionists from a neutral point of view, not to discuss whether they are cool or whether unionism - or republicanism - are in general right or not. Warofdreams talk 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that Arthur Fonzarelli minister for Commerce in Basil Brooke's adminstration was quite cool Fasach Nua (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fonzie be praised. Let us eeeeeeey.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember David Trimble saying the old unionist parliament was a cool house for nationalists Fasach Nua (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the best place to log pages created after the foundation of the wikiproject, with Jim Speers being the first?Traditional unionist (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've set up an automatic log; results should start appearing in a day or two. Please let me know if there are any inaccurate inclusions, or any articles not appearing which should be. Warofdreams talk 16:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done some work and come up with this;

Any additions are most welcome! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the list of Governments be moved to the Chichester-Clark Ministry in line with Blair Ministry?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Blair Ministry is a good template for Craig and Brooke, as there were several parliamentary terms involved there.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One small point, we should use Craigavon and Brookeborough for them, they got the peerages whilst still PM. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming the governments after the PM does seem to be in keeping with how people already discuss them - you hear a lot about the O'Neill ministry/administration/government, but very little aobut the 6th government of Northern Ireland. --Helenalex (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic in that idea, remember most people outside of Northern Ireland and even many people within it, wouldn't have a clue what your refering to, the Northern Ireland Governments weren't exactly headline news even then.--Padraig (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but we ought not 'dumb down' in favour of stupid people and the victims of a bad history syllabus at school! I think using the name of the PM would certainly make more sense than "5th Government...", &c. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not a case of dumbing down, the term X Ministry wasn't used at any time during that period, so why should we invent them now.--Padraig (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be confident that the term 5th Government was used at all either! Naming after the PM is probably much more accurate as well, NI's second Government was probably more accurately that formed in 1925 after the second elections to the NIHOC.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you work that out the first government lasted from 7th June 1921 and 24th November 1940, so where are you getting 1925 from.--Padraig (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's when it was re-elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs) 18:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No that's when the Parliament was re-elected. In the Westminster system the appointment & dismissal of ministers has nothing formally to do with general elections and if a government maintains its majority it doesn't need to be reappointed. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

TU, most changes in the Northern Ireland Governments occurred in between elections, when a new Prime Minister took office apart from that the elections where a formality, and in many cases the candidates where re-elected un-opposed.--Padraig (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevent, but I stand corrected by Tim. Tim, what is your opinion on this?Traditional unionist (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with the PMs for the naming since that's the convention for the UK governments and Stormont did heavily copy UK practice. Numbering is hardly ever used for UK posts and creates more problems than it's worth since it requires people to make OR judgements, particularly on the issue of re-elections, whereas since the Prime Minister is the person who forms a government they are already identified with it. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agreeTraditional unionist (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing a consensus, I'll go ahead and do that next week.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What concensus the discussion is ungoing.--Padraig (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to break into the lifespan of the Parliament then the Ministry see this example you could have a Government of the 1st Northern Ireland Parliament ect --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the Scottish Parliament is set-up somewhat differently and has explicit votes to approve First Ministers. Since almost every Northern Irish election saw the sitting government re-elected (1969 is a little unclear) it seems strange to base the periods in office on the elections when we don't do that for UK ministries. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Also some of the governments changed mid-term between elections.--Padraig (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We do seem to have a clear consensus.......Traditional unionist (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So we're agreed?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me to base the administrations on the PM, rather than the parliament (I would assume in common with the UK national government, the PM or executive committee dont have to be members of parliament) Fasach Nua (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually they did. You could hold a portfolio in Government without being an MP or Ssenator, but only for 6 months.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected! I still think they should bee based on PM though :-D Fasach Nua (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to confuse things a little, there is a strong case for having one page covering all the Stormont governments, since the governing party never actually changed. It would be pretty easy to talk about them as a whole, since there was no major change of direction until O'Neill, and even that's debatable.

On the note of what would be easiest for people outside NI to understand, I'm not from there, and only came to NI history a few years ago, so I can comment on this. Most people who have studied a little NI history would either see all the Stormont governments as one thing, or if seperately, in terms of the Prime Ministers. Talk to the average student of Irish history and they'll know who O'Neill was, but wouldn't have a clue what number his government was. I suspect this is true for a lot of people in Northern Ireland as well. --Helenalex (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that our aim should be to educate, not to pander to assumptions here. I think that the name of the Prime Minister is both accurate, and in line with WP convention.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Coats of Arms are protected under Royal copyright and cannot be used or reproduced without Royal Consent.--Padraig (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your tasks page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism/Tasks, is transcluded into your WikiProject banner, {{WikiProject Unionism}}. There is nothing wrong with that, except that your tasks page includes section headers (which hides the TOC on any talk page the banner is on inside the banner) and __NOTOC__ (which also hides the TOC on any page the banner is on). If someone adds __TOC__ to a talk page to avoid the hidden TOC issue, the TOC has entries for all of your task headers which seemingly do nothing when clicked.

The best fix is to stop using headers (either == or <h2> style) on your tasks page. Alternatively, you could <noinclude> all the headers, but that is probably more trouble than it's worth. This is currently being discussed on the Village Pump, BTW. Anomie⚔ 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would bring tis to the attention of users here we have a anon IP altering the images on Template:Politics_of_Northern_Ireland, Template:Politics_of_Northern_Ireland_1921-72 and Template:Politics_of_Northern_Ireland_1972-98, I have ask on their page not to do this without discussion on the issue first, but they insist on ignoring that request and continues to change the images. These template have been stable since they where created any thoughts.--Padraig (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Most likely not a new user. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Although, now I look at it, I'm pro what they're doing! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point these templates have been stable in regards to the images used since they where created, therefore a change of this type requires debate and consensus.--Padraig (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Politics templates always use the national coat of arms. Northern Ireland uses the Royal Arms (same version used by the United Kingdom Government), whereas Scotland has its own Royal Arms used in its politics template.

Northern Ireland uses the Royal Arms, see for example:

• The Northern Ireland Office ()
• A Northern Ireland Assembly Act, example used the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007
• The Great Seal of Northern Ireland also has the Royal Arms on its reverse side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.222.111 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is this ruling that politics templates always use the coat of arms, please provide a link.--Padraig (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise:

• For the Parliament of Northern Ireland period, use the Coat of Arms of Northern Ireland.
• For the period of direct rule, use the Royal Coat of Arms.
• For the Northern Ireland Assembly period, use the Assembly logo.

--sony-youth^pléigh 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't use the Assembly image in the template under fair usage apparently, also the Ulster banner was selected for 1921-72 because it was the banner of the Northern Ireland Government.--Padraig (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Assembly use the Royal Coat of Arms, as shown above. Also a lot of Northern Ireland legislation is derived by an Order in Council, and Her Majesty's Royal Arms are attached to each Order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.106.187 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Ireland Office is a department controlled by Westminster, the Acts passed by Westminster all use the Royal coat of arms. The Assembly dosent use the coat of arms, on Acts passed by the Assembly they use the Assembly flax symbol as on all documents from that body. The Great seal of Northern Ireland is no longer used and was the seal of the former Govenor it is now in the hands of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from 1972.--Padraig (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to , which lists all the Acts passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and granted the Royal Assent. All versions of the Acts show the Royal Arms at the top. The Northern Ireland Office also uses the Arms, as shown above. All Orders in Council bear Her Majesty's Royal Arms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.106.187 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the annon is right (although you really should register annon). Save for my distant memory remembers seeing a different sort of arms on the 1982 Assembly headed paper, although it may be a different version of the same thing.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No matter what we still can't use the coat of arms under fair useage in templates just as we couldn't use the Assembly Flax Symbol either for the same reason.--Padraig (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again, its an image from Wiki Commons. See —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.106.187 (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Coats of Arms are protected under Royal copyright and cannot be used or reproduced without Royal Consent.--Padraig (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, this image is not protected by copyright. That is why it's on Wikipedia Commons. 86.155.106.187 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not according to crown copy right. And please stop edit warring you have broken 3RR on a number of these templates now which you have already been warned about.--Padraig (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that any image is improperly licenced, I would advise you to take the complaint to commons. WP:AGF is a major part of wikipedia, and if an images is listed as having an appropriate licence for the purpose the user wants then they can use it. If you feel the image is improperly licenced, that is an issue for the image, having dealt with the image, if it is improperly licenced, then have it removed from the inappropriate locations. Fasach Nua (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion for using three symbols was to indicate the three major periods in Northern Ireland politics. That the acts passed by the Northern Assembly carry the royal coat of arms is neither here nor there. The purpose of the image is to provide definition for the template through graphic design, not to illustrate what image appears on acts passed by the one institution or another. Whatever is chosen, it should be distinctive enough for a user to establish at a glance what is the purpose and contexts of the template and to distinguish it from other templates and/or related templates in different contexts. Thus the Royal coat of arms is suitable for Template:Politics of the United Kingdom as it is the coat of arms of the UK as a whole; the Scottish variant suitable for Template:Politics of Scotland as it is pertinent only to the politics of Scotland; and the Red Dragon is suitable for Template:Politics of Wales as it too is only relevant to the administration of Wales. (Did a Template:Politics of England template exist, I would suggest using the three lions there.) Likewise, the Northern Ireland templates should provide a distinctive graphic element as a part of their design that illustrate the context and content of the template.

This is why I suggest using three images for the three periods of Northern Ireland politics. These images have meaning, both in the context of Northern Ireland, in the relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and in terms of the images already in use in UK politics templates. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Unionist Alliance. The main issues raised with the article are a lack of independent references and evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the flag of the Republic of Ireland from the box. I don't know how but it's quite inappropriate! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, 357 articles are assigned to this project, of which 89, or 24.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Unionism}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the photo to [[Image:Sir Edward Carson, bw photo portrait seated.jpg]]. I believe it is a free image, and a better one too.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been having the following discussion with User:Mooretwin as to whether, in articles referring to the period of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, it is useful to replace "Ulster Unionist Party" with "Unionist", or whether this might be less clear. I think that it would be useful to gather some more opinions - what do other contributors think? Warofdreams talk 15:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi - would you mind not piping Ulster Unionist Party to "Unionist" where there could be any confusion. There were also independent Unionists elected to the Parliament, and other Unionist groups such as the Commonwealth Labour Party and the Progressive Unionists also stood in some seats. Similarly, although Nationalist is not a bad situation for Nationalist Party (Northern Ireland) in some situations, in the articles on constituencies, where they often stood against other nationalist candidates, it can be confusing. Warofdreams talk 09:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "Ulster Unionist Party" was not used at the time of those elections. It is a recent name. Candidates were described either as "Unionist" or belonging to the "Unionist Party". Independent unionists would have been "Independent Unionist", so I see no confusion between the two. Similarly "Progressive Unionist" is clearly distinct from "Unionist".

The best way to deal with it is to use the lower case "unionist" when describing unionists generally, reserving "Unionist" for the party label. Same applies with "nationalist" and "Nationalist". This is established practice in much of the literature. Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "Ulster Unionist Party" was in common use from at least the 1950s; This search shows lots of reliable publications issued before 1965 describing the party using the name. "Unionist Party" is OK, although not as clear to the casual reader. "Unionist" appears vague; while you may be using it in this specific sense, there is no way for the casual reader to know this. This is a common problem with using conventions well-known in specific literature - they either require explanation in each article, or should be avoided. Warofdreams talk 13:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By your own admission, then, the term "Ulster Unionist Party" wasn't used for the majority of the life of the Parliament. I think no harm is done because (a) the use of the capital makes it clear that it is a proper name, referring to a party; (b) the name links to "Ulster Unionist Party", and (c) the actual election results refer to "Ulster Unionist Party". Mooretwin (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. The term was used, it was just less common - see this search for works issued from 1925 to 1945. As I have explained, your usage is not clear. As the name links to "Ulster Unionist Party", and the results refer to the UUP, piping the title is pointless and confusing. Warofdreams talk 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it is confusing. The term "Unionist" refers to the party: "unionist" refers generally to someone in support of the Union. Mooretwin (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unionism" with a capital "U" is quite common in referring to someone in support of the Union; how will a reader know that you are using it in a more specific sense? That is how it is confusing. "Ulster Unionist Party" is unambiguous and accurate; "Unionist Party" is pretty clear and is also accurate - why use a term which is more liable to confuse? Warofdreams talk 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"unionism" with a small "u" is now established practice in texts on Northern Ireland when referring in the general sense. There's no risk of confusion for the reader given the three reasons noted above. Using "Unionist" reads much better in the text, than having to spell out the full name of a party that wasn't even in common usage during the life of the Parliament. Mooretwin (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge risk of confusion. (b) and (c) will just add to the confusion. (a), as I have explained, will not be clear to casual readers. Using something clear always reads better than writing something which requires a reader to know which convention a particular editor has decided upon. I could settle for "Unionist Party", although I would prefer the full name, as that is what the majority of readers will be familiar with. Warofdreams talk 15:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no confusion. "Labour candidate", "Liberal candidate" and "Conservative candidate" are regularly used in place of "Labour Party candidate", "Liberal Party candidate" and "Conservative Party candidate", with no confusion. Why not "Unionist candidate" and "Nationalist candidate"? Mooretwin (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For clarity. The convention should be:

• Unionist - refers to (Ulster) Unionist Party or member thereof
• unionist and unionism - refers generally to those in support of the Union
• Nationalist - refers to Nationalist Party (or Irish Parliamentary Party, etc.) or member thereof
• nationalist and nationalism - refers generally to those in support of Irish nationalism Mooretwin (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not to rule out usage of "Unionist Party", "Ulster Unionist Party" or "Nationalist Party", but it is often desirable in prose not to have to refer to the full name of a party, in the same way as prose about an election might refer to the "Liberal candidate" and not the "Liberal Party candidate". Mooretwin (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think when the term 'Unionist' is used there is potential for confusion as to whether the writer means a member of the Ulster Unionist Party or just someone in support of the Union. Having absolute rules is probably a bad idea as it would lead to some really awkward phrasing, but writers should try and make it clear whether they are referring to a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, some other unionist party, or just someone who support the Union. Capitalisation does not do this for the casual reader.

For those unfamiliar with NI politics the term unionist is confusing and ambiguous anyway - it could mean a trade unionist or someone who favours a united Ireland (this is actually what I thought when I started studying Irish history - it made things very confusing for a while). I'm not sure what can or should be done about this other than wikilinking, but it's a point to bear in mind, especially when working on articles likely to be read by people new to Northern Irish politics or history. --Helenalex (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting absolute rules - just the flexibility not always to have to spell out "Ulster Unionist Party" with every reference in every text. Mooretwin (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How about 'Ulster Unionist Party' on first reference, and 'Unionist' or 'Unionist Party' subsequently? Obviously the exception would be pages which discuss more than one unionist party. --Helenalex (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me; once it is clear which party is being referred to, it doesn't matter overly which short form of its name is used. Warofdreams talk 17:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi all,
I've started a new Ireland related project which I hope will bridge a gap I feel exists between the two Wiki community's with an interest in Ireland related matters. The project has just started but I hope it will allow us to work together at first on uncontroversial articles such as Sports in Ireland and if successful I hope will allow for a more constructive and friendly approach to the controversial issues. Gnevin (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:48, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

A poll is on at the BI-taskforce to see whether a compromise can be reached over the usage of the term "British Isles", at Wikipedia:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force#Poll. Just incase you're interested. FF3000 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i'm just placing this here to keep a track of to do's i aim to do for this project and wouldn't mind help in.

to do list removed

I'd suggest using Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland/Tasks, which already has some suggestions/requests. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move it if needs be - just didn't want to jump straight into the agreed list of stuff to do Northern Star ^(talk) 15:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The project might well be better off using a standard todo list, anyway - just it'd be best to keep stuff in one place. The agreed list isn't very formal; people have just added things they'd like to see worked on, and others have removed them when they are done, or discussed here if they disagree. Warofdreams talk 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to a subpage on my talk page anyways. But a ToDo box wouldn't be bad for this article. Northern Star ^(talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi i was wondering whether militant unionism, i.e. loyalism and the such, falls under the scope of this WikiProject? Or should it be on a WikiProject of its own? Wondering as nationalism and republicanism are grouped together under WikiProject Irish Prepublic. Despite their methods their ultimate aim is the same as that of moderate and liberal unionists - maintaining the Union. Northern Star ^(talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Although it hasn't been a focus of the project, many articles relating to loyalism are tagged as within its scope - I think it's pretty uncontroversial. Note that there are some articles on loyalism and loyalists which relate to Ulster nationalism rather than unionism, and they don't form part of the project. Warofdreams talk 15:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry i'm only including articles were it is clear that it is to do with unionism and not Ulster nationalism. Though the UDA fall onto both categories as many members believe in both paths so i tagged the UDA article as belonging to the Unionism category on that basis. Northern Star ^(talk) 22:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added several articles to the Category:Unionism page - their unionism is attested to so they aren't dodgy. Though i was wondering - should their be a sub-category for "Unionist Parties" seeing as there are a few defunct and current. Northern Star ^(talk) 21:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've recently rewritten and upgraded the entire Larne gun-running article which had failed many Wiki guidelines and would like someone to independantly assess and class the article please. The article i believe meets many Wiki guidelines though does still have a issue as stated by me on its discussion page. Northern Star ^(talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unionism in Ireland/Article alerts has been created; generating Article alerts for this WikiProject. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

After a two-year ban imposed by Arbcom, a page move discussion for the Republic of Ireland can be entertained.

• (Discuss)–Republic of Ireland→Ireland (republic) Kauffner (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, your input would be appreciated here on a proposed rename of the Category:Unionism category. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Category:Unionism --KarlB (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

Interested editors are invited to review and comment on a request for amendment to the discretionary sanctions remedy (R5) of the The Troubles Arbitration case.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows:

The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 20:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Unionism in Ireland#Recent changes which may benefit from more participants. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)