From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dab again[edit]

--(WT-en) Disonyxiated 19:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Ouch, not a fan of this dab either. I would think anyone looking specifically for Northern Ireland would search for that. But, I'll leave it be... --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 19:05, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

We have to consider that someone may wish to visit "Ireland" and (believe it or not) be unaware that it falls under two different governments. We do the same thing with Korea and Congo. Also, using "Ireland" for the Republic would imply that Northern Ireland is not "Ireland", which would be... troublesome. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:01, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Why don't we just include the two regions under one main topic..?? (i.e. Ireland (Island) ) I don't think many tourists travelling to Ireland (Island) really view the two states as being entirely different places. --(WT-en) Disonyxiated 19:34, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that is the reason why I don't like this disambig. From a traveler's perspective, there are no border controls, hence Ireland is one tourist destination. The two Congos and Koreas have border controls (to say the least) as well as serious differences in their cultures and social structures, whereas the "Irelands" simply do not. When I visited Ireland, I certainly didn't think of it in terms of the North and the South, I thought of it in terms of "Belfast area," "Dublin Area," "Dingle," etc. This reality is well represented by the fact that we actually have Northern Ireland listed as a region of I think this is a good example of how Wikivoyage's policy of privileging sovereignty does not necessarily help the traveler. Regardless of what "country" you are in here, you are really just traveling around Ireland, the island. Why privilege politics over travel?
This is also a frustrating practice "for the editor" since I keep accidentally setting up links to places like Talk:Ireland#Regions. In fact, I would have forgotten about this whole thing if I hadn't just accidentally wound up here again.
I would really prefer to see one Ireland region (not country) article including Northern Ireland, which could also be linked from United Kingdom. The only problem would be: where would we put that Republic of Ireland quickbar ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:50, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Discussion from Republic of Ireland Talk page[edit]

With the caveat of having no clue about the situation, I don't really see much of a rationale above for the current "Republic of Ireland", which seems to fly in the face of Wikivoyage's normal "most common name" convention and gets some objections on political grounds too. Would it be thoroughly unacceptable to move it to plain old "Ireland", which is already used on most other language versions and a huge slew of incoming links, and plop in a China/Israel style disclaimerbox that this article is about the bit where they use euros, and you need to mosy over to Northern Ireland for the pound-using bit? (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

I partly support that proposal as it would enable us to dispose of the present clunky and unWikivoyage-like title. However, there is the disadvantage of losing a disambiguation that offers a convenient link to both the south and north for people who are visiting the island of Ireland (irrespective of the political divisions). It might also be worth noting that we have maintained disambiguation pages for other articles with similar status: Korea Borneo and Timor. The main problem here is that Ireland is the name of both the country and the island, whereas the other places mentioned either have totally unrelated names or have the prefix of west and east... mmm (WT-en) WindHorse 08:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
The difference is that there are no countries called "Korea", "Borneo" or "Timor". Even Republic of Macedonia has been moved to Macedonia (Republic). (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:13, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I also support this proposal, in conjunction with a removal of the disambiguation discussed above. A link to Northern Ireland in the regions section of Ireland would take care of travelers looking for that information; its description can and should mention that it is in a different country. My personal experience is that travelers are visiting the Emerald Isle, not "The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom Home Country of Northern Ireland." And on Wikivoyage the politics do not come first. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:23, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree that practical considerations should overrule political ones and, as stated, many travelers who visit the Emerald Island are only interested in information about the whole geographical region, and are not concerned whether the part they are visiting is ruled from Dublin or London. However, by using the title Ireland to represent both political entities, I think we will inflame both republican and unionist sentiments and incite a constant edit war. Therefore, I wonder whether it would be better to preserve Ireland as the title for the island and have the following two disambiguations: 'Ireland (republic)' and 'Northern Ireland'. In this way, the title is Wikified, political sensitivities are respected and the Emerald Island retains a title that is convenient for travelers who are interested in scenery, not politics. In some ways, using Ireland as a title to represent the whole island without the political disambiguations is perhaps similar to using the title America to cover the US, Canada and Latin America and just mentioning in the article that the regions use different currencies. Anyway, just throwing out some ideas. (WT-en) WindHorse 05:22, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
plus plus plus...another point for keeping the republic and north as separate articles is the visa regulations. For EU member states obviously no visas are required, and I'm sure that both counties have the same policy towards the US and Canada, but for other nationals it could be different. I know that for Bhutanese, a visa for France allows travel to Germany, but not to the UK. That requires a different application. It is many moons since I traveled on the Swansea to Cork ferry, and I have totally forgotten the regulations, but there is quite a possibility that there is a difference, as there is between France and the UK. Anyway, just an after thought... (WT-en) WindHorse 09:20, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Ireland and the UK are part of a common travel area, and there are no border controls. It's sort of like our own mini-Schengen ;-) You will be lucky if you notice crossing the border never mind being stopped. Most guidebooks that I know of deal with the entire island, and this does seem a sensible approach, I don't see why people planning a visit would restict themselves to one or other jurisdiction. -- (WT-en) Blorg 17:09, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
Hi Blorg, I full agree with your point. However, the reason for maintaining separate articles for the two jurisdictions was not made in respect to travelers restricting themselves to one political region, but to accommodate different information. For example, the south is part of the Euro zone, whereas the north uses GB Pounds. Separating the two areas avoids having to state general prices in two currencies. There are also different ticketing rules for public transportation in both regions. Again, this can only be covered adequately if the they are given separate articles. As I said, I fully agree with your comments when looked at from the point of border controls, but in order to offer information on the two regions in a clear and non-confusing way in was thought best to keep the two areas separate. Anyway, thanks for your input on the matter. Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 21:28, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Discussion from Talk:Republic of Ireland[edit]

Extensive discussion copied from Talk:Republic of Ireland:

I dunno, except for the mistake with the UK flag those changes looked a lot to me like an honest attempt to plunge-forward and get an article started. For instance note the way that the person had replaced the fact book with the country template (admittedly it should be the wiki format version). I think I'd rather see the anon users stuff fixed up with the wiki format version of the template and the correct flag, than to do a rollback to the CIA version. I figure we want to encourage folks who really are plunging forward. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:30, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)

If I was too hasty I am sorry, but when I saw the page it was only a template and appeared to be vandalism. The user edited the page at the same time I rolled it back. -- (WT-en) Huttite 07:37, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
I'm sure it's OK. Sometimes I think anon users (those who are not vandals) are a bit un-confident and should be given some room to make mistakes since we can always roll-back later. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:57, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
I note they came back later and made some good changes. I am going to add the full template to see if that will help them more. -- (WT-en) Huttite 08:26, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)

Ireland vs. Republic of Ireland[edit]

Hi, just started on Ireland and Northern Ireland, and was wondering if 'Ireland', the name of the country in Europe referring to the 26 counties, could be changed to the 'Republic of Ireland', as 'Ireland' generally means the 32 counties and things could get a little confusing. Also, the first edit to the Ireland page wasn't me, the second one was me (when I was anonymous), in case there was some ambiguity. -- (WT-en) Professorbiscuit

I'm a little dubious about this. First, I'm a scaredy-cat about hotspot political issues like Ireland. But second, I'd worry that we'd then have two places to put information about the Republic: on Ireland, and on Republic of Ireland.
That all said, I think if we make Ireland a disambiguation page (rather than a page about the island), it'll probably be OK. Any other thoughts? --(WT-en) Evan 20:52, 1 Apr 2004 (EST)
Disambiguation page sounds good -- (WT-en) Huttite 03:31, 2 Apr 2004 (EST)
Works for me -- (WT-en) Professorbiscuit

I just discovered this conversation. It was me who messed up the page in the first place and yes it was an honest attempt to start it and yes I went back in later, nervously, to continue. It's much easier now the correct template is there. I'll add more if I can. I've done some on the Cork page too -- ( anonfromCork)

anon: Don't worry about messing things up -- you did a great job getting this article active. Thanks for your work and help. --(WT-en) Evan 22:56, 3 Apr 2004 (EST)
There is no such country as "Republic of Ireland", though it is sometimes wrongly described as such. The name of the country which is the subject of this article is "Ireland" and it happens to be a republic. It is not to be confused with "Northern Ireland", which is a part of the United Kingdom. The title of this page should be "Ireland", and the disambiguation page should distinguish between "Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". --Lorcan 2 Aug 2005
You are strictly speaking correct, but the Republic of Ireland is the country's legal description as stated in the Republic of Ireland Act.
That said, the "common usage" criterion tells me this page really should be at plain old Ireland, with a disclaimerbox pointing to Northern Ireland. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:56, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)
I believe that Lorcan has stated it correctly. The Irish Constitution specifically states that, in English, the name of the country is "Ireland". The Republic of Ireland Act refers only to the "description", not to the "name". In addition, the Constitution takes precedence over all laws so that if the Oireachtas had wanted to change the name of the country then a referendum to change the Constitution would have been required. As an Irish citizen may I state (with all due nervousness) that I often come across fellow citizens who object to "Republic of Ireland", some who don't mind it and no-one who prefers it. --BrianR 15 Sep 2005

I want to revisit this discussion. I feel the disambiguation page is redundant and this article should be moved to Ireland and move the disambiguation page to Ireland (Disambiguation). Everyone in the UK understands the relationship between Ireland and Northern Ireland, as does everyone in Ireland. I'm sure the majority of Americans do too because I remember, even as a young child, watching video of the Catholics and Protestants clashing and became aware of the turmoil and history of Ireland. So I think a disambiguation of "Ireland" is just foolish as most English speakers will likely know Northern Ireland is independent of Ireland. Thoughts? -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 23:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not overly familiar with the region on a personal level, so can not add voice to objections to one or the other based on local sentiments. However, I think that most people are aware that Ireland refers to the republic and Northern Ireland refers to the province. So, I think it is acceptable to drop the disambiguation in favor of having two unconnected articles simply called 'Ireland' and 'Northern Ireland'. (WT-en) WindHorse 03:32, 8 June 2007 (EDT)...though on reflection, leaving the disambiguation is useful for travelers who wish to visit the island of Ireland. In addition, we have a disambiguation the two Koreas, where the lines of demarcation are far more clearly defined. Maybe the argument for maintaining the status quo is, perhaps, slightly in more compelling... (WT-en) WindHorse 03:46, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
There is a bit of a discussion of this issue from a different angle at Talk:Ireland. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
As a new wikivoyage user (and a citizen of Ireland), I have an interest in this conversation. Firstly, I also edit on wikipedia, and conversations on this topic can get *VERY* heated at times over there, so it's nice to see it kept on an even keel here!
I would say that there are merits on both sides of the arguement regarding having a disambiguation page or not. Personally, I expected there to be one when I came here, and I automatically searched for Republic of Ireland rather than Ireland (perhaps that's my wikipedia training!).
Speaking as someone living here, I personally see the two jurisdictions as being distinct and different, and from that point of view, perhaps they should have two articles. However, this site is primarily for travellers and tourists, and I don't know whether they would view it as one country or two, particularly since the whole peace process, and decommissioning of arms by the IRA, Etc. There is a border between the two jurisdictions, but it is largely un-manned, given that there is a common travel policy between Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to give it it's full title).
On balance if I had to express a preference for one article which covers Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or two separate articles, I think I'd plumb for one article, but make sure that the two jursidictions are treated with respect, or Northern Ireland could get 'lost'.
I don't know if this helps or hinders the conversation, but it's my 2c worth anyway! --(WT-en) The.Q 08:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
comment copied from Talk:Ireland to consolidate this discussion
From a traveler's perspective, there are no border controls, hence Ireland is one tourist destination. The two Congos and Koreas have border controls (to say the least) as well as serious differences in their cultures and social structures, whereas the "Irelands" simply do not. When I visited Ireland, I certainly didn't think of it in terms of the North and the South, I thought of it in terms of "Belfast area," "Dublin Area," "Dingle," etc. This reality is well represented by the fact that we actually have Northern Ireland listed as a region of Ulster. I think this is a good example of how Wikivoyage's policy of privileging sovereignty does not necessarily help the traveler. Regardless of what "country" you are in here, you are really just traveling around Ireland, the island. Why privilege politics over travel?
This is also a frustrating practice "for the editor" since I keep accidentally setting up links to places like Talk:Ireland#Regions. In fact, I would have forgotten about this whole thing if I hadn't just accidentally wound up here again. *note: just did this again today :(
I'd like to add that this change would be easy to implement now, as I am implementing the new top-level regions discussed below. A new scheme would actually elevate Northern Ireland's position in the Ireland hierarchy, as it is currently buried in Ulster. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:19, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
Here, here! Let's do it.. and just to avoid politics we'll add the Template:Disclaimerbox, which is also used on Golan Heights and is semi-considered an Israeli territory, though the breadcrumb suggests it's a large area in the Middle East. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 00:28, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Usefulness of the Provinces[edit]

I've been working on adding information to the Ireland pages based on my recent trip which included 2 months in Ireland, and I found that using the four Provinces as a seperate page was kind of annoying, and not that useful from a travel guide point of view.

For one thing, aside from knowing that County Galway, where I spent most of my time, is in Connacht, and that Northern Ireland is most of Ulster, I have no real idea as to where the boundaries of the provinces are, so just seeing the four of them on the main page wasn't very helpful. And I've already been there.

The other problem I was having with the previous setup was that there was very little to say about each province except what counties and cities were within them, without repeating information that would be more useful on the pages for the counties and cities.

So what I did was move all the names of the counties into the regions list, using the provinces only as secondary headings. Of course the disadvantage is that this makes a 30 lines long list, which is a bit of a pain too.

Anyway, what I'm wondering is what people think of this, which way is better, and is there a better way to show users what parts of the country fall into which provinces without making such a long list? - (WT-en) Neil C 23:54, 10 Aug 2004 (EDT)

I think the main downside to what you did is that we try to keep divisions of a country or region down to about 7+/-2 parts. Take a look at Project:geographical hierarchy#dividing geographical units for some more details. I think having the 4 province pages is the better bet, even if they are really short. --(WT-en) Evan 02:42, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)
I agree in theory. But I was also in Ireland this summer, and the new long format would have been much more useful.
-(WT-en) Elgaard

I looked through the geographical hierarchy and I can see where you're coming from. The problem in Ireland, more significant than just the short pages in between national and county levels, is that the regional names are rarely, if ever, used, and the names mean nothing to the uninitiated. This makes the Irish situation somewhat different from, for example, the US, where if you say "Mid-west," even if you don't know the country, there is still some geographic meaning.

I was actually hoping someone would have a third option, that would make the provincial breakdown more useful to the traveller without having to make a long list of counties. -(WT-en) Neil C 15:47, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Can you think of another way to group the counties into a smaller number of regions? Is there a more traditional or well-known high-level grouping than the provinces? If not, I think we should really leave the provinces in there. --(WT-en) Evan 16:50, 11 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Irish hierarchy revisited[edit]

Ireland regions map.png

Well, I see this topic has fermented for a long time. I am sure there must be a better way to do the top-level regions for Ireland—currently we have a region (Ulster) within Ireland that overlaps the entirety of Northern Ireland, which is in a different country. Worst of all, it leads to a disambiguation page! I'll look into this some more. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 19:13, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Here's a map of a new regions proposal, based on the regions that the country itself promotes. I will allow some time for others to comment and, if no objections, I'll plunge forward with a new regional hierarchy for Ireland. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald Talk 16:13, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
<own horn toot>Oh wow! I forgot how nice my map was!</own horn toot> Is it safe to say that I should plunge forward with this, as no one has objected? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Peter, this acutally looks good, IMHO! The map looks very good too :). Are these the Fáilte Ireland (official tourist agency) regions? That would probably be the best way to sort out the counties on a tourist website! I'd say, plunge forward --(WT-en) The.Q 08:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
As I look at your map again, I think you may need to show the location of some of the main towns also, to give the traveller a good idea as to what's where! --(WT-en) The.Q 08:28, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, I finally got an endorsement and no one has opposed the new scheme over the past month, so I'm going to change over from the existing regional hierarchy to this one. I will make sure to transfer all existing content (to the extent that it is possible) and to avoid orphaning any cities. And yes these are the official Fáilte Ireland regions, with the one exception that I have not created a separate Dublin region. I think the official Dublin region fits just fine as a subregion of East Coast & Midlands. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:06, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Discussion copied from User talk:(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald

Peter, off the top of my head, I suppose you'd need to include at least one town/city for each region. Without having put too much thought into it, I'd suggest the following (by region):

Northwest Ireland, Sligo and Letterkenny
West Ireland, Galway and Athlone
Shannon Region, Limerick
Southwest Ireland, Cork
Southeast Ireland, Waterford
East Coast & Midlands, Dublin obviously, and also Kilkenny

These are a few thoughts, if I thought harder about it (which I will do!) I'd possibly change a few of them. I'll come back to this. --(WT-en) The.Q 08:20, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Well, I said I'd think about it, and I did! Each of the traditional counties in Ireland has one (or sometimes two) town(s) which is known as the county seat. This is usually the largest town in the county, frequently the administrative centre of the county also, although this is not absolute. For each of the regions, then, I have written below the county towns (and their respective counties), in what I would consider order of importance. I would then leave it up to your judgement as to which of them you could include on your map, taking into account how much space you have, Etc.
  1. Dublin, County Dublin
  2. Naas, County Kildare
  3. Athlone, County Westmeath (actually Mullingar is the county town for Westmeath, but Athlone is more tourist-centric)
  4. Wicklow, County Wicklow (Bray is actually bigger, but it is practically a suburb of Dublin)
  5. Longford, County Longford
  6. Navan, County Meath
  7. Tullamore, North County Offaly
  8. Portlaoise, County Laois
  9. Dundalk, County Louth

  1. Waterford, County Waterford
  2. Kilkenny, County Kilkenny
  3. Clonmel, County Tipperary (Co. Tipp. is historically divided into two, and the South Riding is in South East Ireland)
  4. Wexford, County Wexford
  5. Carlow, County Carlow
  1. Sligo, County Sligo
  2. Letterkenny, County Donegal (actually, the much smaller Lifford is the county town)
  3. Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim
  4. Cavan, County Cavan
  5. Monaghan, County Monaghan
  1. Galway, County Galway
  2. Castlebar, County Mayo
  3. Roscommon, County Roscommon
  1. Limerick, County Limerick
  2. Ennis, County Clare
  3. Nenagh, County Tipperary (Co. Tipp. is historically divided into two, and the North Riding is in the Shannon Region)
  4. Birr, South County Offaly
  1. Cork, County Cork
  2. Tralee, County Kerry (although Killarney may be more appropriate for tourists)

Does this help, or make it more difficult??!! --(WT-en) The.Q 10:24, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

That most certainly does help, and with more things than just the maps. You can see from the two maps I have added to the Ireland page what I have incorporated. I have now also implemented the new regional hierarchy throughout Wikivoyage. There are now region pages for each of the Fáilte Ireland regions, which could use some attention from a knowledgeable editor such as yourself (I have good travel knowledge only about the Dingle Peninsula, as far as Ireland is concerned). You might notice that I also avoided splitting counties across the top-level regions, as Fáilte Ireland does, because to do so would make things less clear (IMO) for contributors in a wiki-environment. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Hi, I just tried to tidy up the Destinations/ Cities putting 9 in each list as is standard on wikivoyage. I tried to base the cities on the great list from (WT-en) The.Q above. I don't mind if they are changed

I would say these should definitely be on the list, as for the rest, five from these trying to distribute them geographically

The Other Destinations is a little more tricky

I think those stand out, then four from the rest;

From the existing list I removed Dundalk (I would say not a highlight of Ireland) *Dromineer(perhaps a little too specialist, I put a mention in on the sailing section of the artcle.) historical regions*Carlow (I think can go as well, someone well meaning has elevated the place of Carlow, and though it is a nice town agian it is not a highlight of Ireland)

Anyway feel free to change these around they are just some ideas. Hope it has been useful (WT-en) Meltwaterfalls 08:08, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I and my friends have many family members (and more friends) across Ireland and find it insulting that the four Provinces of the island of Ireland are not stated. For reference they are Ulster, Munster, Leinster & Connaught. It should also be stated that although Northern Ireland is sometimes (wrongly) referred to as Ulster this is incorrect as the true Province of Ulster consists of 9 counties. The map (whichever is used) should clearly show the four individual provinces and maybe even point out that the most northerly point of the island of Ireland is actually part of Republic of Ireland —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Insulting, really? If this is very important, you could add something to the understand section, but Wikivoyage regions are meant to divide larger regions up in a way that makes most sense for the visitor. If we only used four regions, there would be too much content in each of them, thus we went for six, based on the Fáilte Ireland regions. For more information on Irish administrative divisions, you can always follow the link to Wikipedia in the sidebar ;) --Peter Talk 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody in Ireland would recognise the regions as shown in the map. They would be regarded as "makeyuppy" regions by Fáilte Ireland. They are there for marketing purposes. Any Irish person, and even a lot people coming to Ireland, would be more familiar with the 4 provinces and the counties of Ireland, not the regions listed. Ask someone where they are going and they are most likely to name the county, possibly the province, but not the region. A map of the counties and provinces should be primarily shown on this page. Maybe the regional map could be retained, but it is not of importance to most people. They'll find them with Fáilte Ireland, but few other places. Coming here, they'll want to see Ireland's provinces, counties, towns and cities.

As to cities, what constitutes a city in Ireland is different to what it would in some places. There are lots of what would be regarded as large towns in Ireland, which others outside of Ireland might refer to as a city. Even Kilkenny, officially regarded as a city for historical reasons, is really just a town, and even many Irish people would not call it a city. There are many towns in Ireland much bigger than it, that would not be regarded or referred to as cities. It is a matter of pride in Kilkenny to have it called a city. Some of the places listed, like Letterkenny, Killarney and Sligo are not cities. I changed the heading to Cities and towns to reflect this.--IrishFlukey (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


"There are many Irish people who will hold visitors in higher esteem if they make the effort to learn and speak some basic Irish phrases, especially in tourist centres and pubs."

as an Irishman in all the times i have seen any foreign visitor attempt to speak Irish it has generally benn met with eith curious amusement or downright disdain (esp. Americans) the main reason for this is the low level of spoken irish in ireland so most irish people will be unable to understand even simple phrases if they are mispronunced (cead mile failte is the most frequently mangled expression), unless i can see some evidence that tourists are encouraged ot speak irish in the gaeltacht I would be in favour of deleting this passage as I and every other Irish person I know would consider any attempt by a tourist to speak irish generally a faux pas and would consider the above statement bad advice and liable in some extreem circumstances to cause trouble . any thoughts ,note I wont change this for some timee to give people time to respond. 19:59, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

Don't agree with above. You are giving a personal opinion and taking an extreme view regarding the Irish language. My experience is that visitors who attempt Irish are received with good manners and treated with respect. I think it is the same as somebody trying out a few French phrases in Paris. User:(WT-en) Ciaranc
As Ciaran says this a personal opinion.The user is being ignorant and disingenuous.Couldn't see anyone taking offense at this.Unfortuantely some Irish people dislike Irish due to it being obligatory in education here.

Can we not change the comment on the main page that says no need to speak Irish.Instead you could put 'Using Irish is not necessary but if used will be met with surprise. User:(WT-en) Diarmuidh

"However, some native Irish speakers may take offense if you call Irish "Gaelic" as this is the incorrect term and refers to Scottish Gaelic."

Gaelic is a perfectly correct term for the Irish language, particularly for the dialect which is spoken in the Donegal Gaeltacht. However, 'gaelic' is, unfortunately, also a very common abbreviation for the sport Gaelic Football, which can cause confusion for the amazing number of Irish people who don't know that 'Gaelic' is a correct term for the language. Anyway, Wikipedia [[1]] has more.

-- 16:21, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

External links[edit]

Here are some external links for Ireland that some WikiTravel users added and may be used for reference.

End discussion copied from Talk:Republic of Ireland --(WT-en) Peter Talk 00:03, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Going a bit too far?[edit]

I think the disclaimer and mutant quickbar that squeezes both UK and RoI info into one is going too far, and I really don't want to see the rest of the article turn into "it's X, except Northern Ireland, where it's Y". This is the only article for the Republic and should focus on the Republic -- stuff specific to Northern Ireland belongs in that article and only that article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 13:09, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

The only reason there is a problem is that we are using an unnecessary country quickbar, when a simple Ireland region page would work just just fine. Ahem and ahem. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:18, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
It's not just the quickbar. It doesn't serve anybody's purpose to have the rest of the article turn into "the currency is the euro, except in NI, where it's the pound, and the railway operator is Iarnród Éireann, except in NI, where it's British Railways, and Irish is the official first language, except in NI, where it's not, and...". (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Hi Peter. Thanks for all your efforts on this page. However, I admit that I also share some of Jpatokal's concerns. While using a geographical feature to represent two or more political entities obviously has some advantages for a traveler, it is going to be very difficult to maintain. Not only will almost every statement require an exclusion clause such as those referred to by Jpatokal, but in the case of Ireland we are opening ourselves up for a constant edit war with Unionists who will oppose classifications that imply that the north is part of a united Ireland. Personaly, I think the traveler (and for that matter, the contributor) would be better served if this page covered the republic only. Anyway, this is just my personal opinion, but please give it some thought. Then later, if you decide to make changes based on our concerns, let me know if I can help (although I am far from an Irish expert - in fact I had to check Wikipedia to find out whether it was the Unionists or Nationalists that wanted the north to remain part of the UK!). Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 00:51, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, fair enough. I just couldn't resist the urge to take a cheap shot at the quickbar. I suppose the best way to handle this will be to simply have a clear disclaimer at the top and in the region description for NI that this page does not address issues pertaining specifically to NI, just to ROI. I won't be able to take care of any of this until next week because I will not have internet access. So if anyone else would like to tidy things up on this article, please plunge forward! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:10, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
OK. Unless somebody beats me to it, I'll have a bash over the weekend. Have a good time in the mountains. (WT-en) WindHorse 03:14, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
<holds hand up in guilt> Sorry! This is probably my fault. I've done most of the changes mentioned above, but I was acting in good faith! I thought the decision arrived at over the last few days was that this page would cover the island of Ireland, and then there wouldn't be a need for two separate pages, i.e. Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I must have misread the situation, please accept my apologies. </holds hand up in guilt> WH, I'll leave the changes to you, as I won't be at my computer over the weekend (Despite the terrible weather here in Ireland over the last 6 weeks, weeds continue to grow and grass still needs to be cut in my garden, so that's my project for this weekend!) --(WT-en) The.Q 09:37, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
No need for an apologies, and I agree the debate was unclear, especially as it was being conducted on two separate talk pages. I also lost thread for a while. Anyway, that's how things progress - a nudge there and a change here. I'm just happy that you agree with our conclusions. I'll have a look at the page over weekend, though personally would prefer to help you in your garden in Ireland. It is such a beautiful land....Take it easy. (WT-en) WindHorse 10:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Content delimitation[edit]

We should have a clearer delimitation of the content limits of this article. The way I think I read the rough agreement from preceding discussions, is that this article should cover information relevant to visitors of the island in general, and to visitors to the "Republic of Ireland," as the republic a) covers the majority of the island and b) does not have its own separate article. Content relevant to visitors of specifically Northern Ireland, however, should remain in the Northern Ireland article, for the practical reason that it is a much smaller subdivision of the island, and that anyone visiting Northern Ireland will read that article. This delineation should ideally prevent the article from mutating into a comparison of the two countries.

A couple of practices would IMHO be useful to keep this content organized:

1). Include a disclaimerbox at the top of the article explaining, "This article covers both topics about the island of Ireland in general and topics specific to the ‘Republic of Ireland.’ Please find information specific to Northern Ireland in its own article."

2). The cities list (which is limited to nine cities, per Project:Geographical hierarchy) should not include destinations in Northern Ireland.

3). Ditto for the "other destinations" list.

I'm pretty sure the disclaimerbox would be useful, although I'm not at all certain about points 2 & 3. Does this seem reasonable? And are there any other suggestions? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Peter, I agree with you, and I plunged forward to make what changes i thought necessary. I thought this was all sorted out during the summer. --(WT-en) The.Q(t)(c) 07:33, 12 December 2007 (EST)

What happened?[edit]

I remembered this being a good article, but it's in really bad shape right now. Section headers are all over the place, ugly front-linked external links everywhere, ridiculous amounts of information about car rentals—it's a mess! So I add the style tag. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Rail Travel in Ireland link[edit]

Tried to add a link to Rail travel in Ireland, a relatively new travel topic, but it's appearing in red despite letter for letter accuracy with the target page. Am I doing something wrong with my markup? Thanks (WT-en) Jamesbrownontheroad 05:02, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm an arse. Fixed it myself (rogue capital letter messing up the link) (WT-en) Jamesbrownontheroad 05:03, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Gigantic car rental company table[edit]

Anyone mind if I get rid of this table? We don't use this for any other country article, and it overwhelms the page with information about various companies in such a way that I feel intimidated to even try to read it. All the html is likely off-putting to unversed contributors as well. I'd reduce it to a short list, and reduce all the extensive information in it that could likely be accessed through the agencies' websites. Objections? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:04, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I have also removed the long list of generic car hire companies. Absolutely no need for this as car hire in Ireland is a very simple matter. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:18, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

City list.[edit]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of a policy regarding the number of cities that can appear in an article. But there is something seriously wrong with an article about Irish tourism that does not mention Killarney once in any part of it. Killarney had been a major tourist destination for over 250 years. It was for a long time the major tourist destination in Ireland, with almost every bus tour going through it. (It lost that mantle to Galway recently I believe). I suggest removing Letterkenny or Limerick. No offence to either place, but both are new to the tourist trail, and particulary Letterkenny is popular with Irish tourists rather than international tourists.--(WT-en) Dmol 16:05, 21 February 2010 (EST)

It will be good to come up with a more solid consensus for the Irish cities/towns list. I agree with the post at the end of the #Irish hierarchy revisited thread that Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Galway all should be in the list, as they are clearly Ireland's four largest cities (Limerick is less of a tourist destination, but travel, and hence Wikivoyage, isn't just about tourism).
Because one of our goals in this exercise is to try to get a nice geographical spread, I'd prefer that we keep northerly Letterkenny. On that same note, I see we have three cities all from one region, the Southeast (Kilkenny, Waterford, and Wexford). Perhaps we could add Killarney and remove Wexford?
Also, lets remember that the cities/OD lists are for navigational purposes, and as such are relatively unimportant. Even important cities, towns, etc. that are not included here can and should be described in the see, do, buy, eat, drink, etc. sections of the article itself. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:43, 21 February 2010 (EST)
OK, I'll take out Wexford (which is already mentioned as a county) and add Killarney if no-one objects in the next few days.--(WT-en) Dmol 04:19, 2 March 2010 (EST)


Within this section it should be mentioned that there has been a history of rebellion, fighting (or even "troubles") going back over 300 years to try to overthrow British Rule in Ireland and that this led to the circumstances which resulted in the formation of Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Also (which is relevant here) the potato famine should be documented here instead of the brief reference to it under the section Respect! 09:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good ideas, now please make these changes! --Peter Talk 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Children in Ireland[edit]

"In Ireland there are significant concerns regarding children. Any visitor to Ireland with children should be aware that under Irish law children can be taken from anyone who is in Ireland, even a visitor. The full Child Care law is here. All Child Care/family hearings are "in-camera" which means that they are secret court hearings. Be aware of these laws and what is acceptable as cultural norms in Ireland to ensure the safety of your children if bringing them with you on a visit or stay."

I don't think there's any real risk of the Irish state taking the children of visitors off them and I say this paragraph should be removed. 08:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That seemed quite odd to me too. I also say remove it. --Peter Talk 09:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You would be inaccurate in that statement. There has been a growing number of internationals targeted by social services since the fall of the Celtic tiger who are citing cultural differences as reasons for removal of children. To not warn people of the law is wrong. A number of groups and individuals have been investigating the serious human rights violations that have been occurring in relation to this problem that is on the rise. Some groups have speculated that the rise is due to the use of foster placement as a means of giving employment to friends and family who have lost their jobs. Others have attributed it to an over zealousness on the part of social workers. Regardless of the cause or motivation parents need to be made aware. Due to the in-camera nature of the hearings specifics cannot be discussed outside the court. In addition, in Ireland, where there is a long history of state abuse of children such as the well publicized Magdalene Laundries In law single parents still do not have the same rights as married couples and as such are vulnerable to abuse by the state and the use of the Child Care act section 18 c as a reason to take their children due to the potential harm of growing up in a single parent home. This is still used as justification for removing children from good people. If visitors are not made aware of these laws and the dangers they —The preceding comment was added by User:Humanrightschild (talkcontribs)

I would also point out to Peter and the special contribution individual that the point is that people are not aware and need to be made aware. and may I suggest to contribute to the discussion about removal you should substantiate it with fact and not just the idea that it seems odd. This is the law in Ireland. Humanrightschild (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not a lawyer but afaik most countries in Europe have in camera laws for legal cases that effect minors. At least in Germany, Switzerland and some other Continental European countries it is the norm that the names of minors and the trial excludes the public if the person concerned is under 14/16 years of age. I read the article and can't find anything that is outside the norm of legal cases. Details that could identify minors are clearly limited in most countries. Concerning the Magdalene laundry: Most European countries have similar issues. In Switzerland it is (only in the German version are the abuse cases mentioned) and Germany has so far 27 registered cases . It's not good to surpress such cases but Ireland is rather the norm than the exception. jan (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, Ireland has been considered by some to be a haven for child abductions There is also the multitude of concerns for children in care which I have not addressed here as this is a travel site, but is why it is very important for people to know such as these issues before bringing their children to Ireland. even a small search will highlight numerous current issues with regards to treatment of children in Ireland and Human Rights Violations. Humanrightschild (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Mmh, Ireland signed the in 1955 and most respect EU law due to its membership. I don't know what your problem with Ireland is but i would say that child abduction are a real problem in countries that have not signed or are not member of the HCCH. If you look a bit closer on your first link, you will find out that Turkey and other countries are way higher offenders of international law than Ireland. I guess that doesn't make the case better but when it comes to travelling parents and their kids, Ireland at least offer some judical oversight and doesn't ignore international law. jan (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jan I don't have a problem with Ireland I just do quite a bit of work in terms of Human Rights and children and Ireland is currently one of those countries that is very problematic. I personally hope that they will choose to do better. and no Ireland does not offer much in terms of judicial oversight. there are cases of travelling or people temporarily or permanently working abroad in Ireland are having their children taken. There are cases where Ireland is refusing to allow families to return to their home country and due to the slow judicial process the cases go on for years with little or no contact between parent(s) and child(ren). I only included the information with regards to child abduction as an example of how the problem is on the rise and how Ireland's reputation is among those who actually work in this area. Personally I think that saying that it's not as bad as other countries is not really a reason not to warn parents. I also think that Ireland has numerous issues with implementing international law especially in terms of human rights.There is a significant lack of accountability and transparency.see for example Committee against Torture (3 June 2011). "Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture". Parents who bring their children need to be aware of this so as to ensure that they take the right precautions before visiting. Also it would be useful in their decision making with regards to visiting or working in Ireland. I have encountered many parents who wish they had this information before coming to Ireland. —The preceding comment was added by Humanrightschild (talkcontribs)

As you state above judical process in Ireland do take time and often might violate international and/or European law 'but at least laws exist and are respected in general. Wikivoyage is a travel guide for the whole world and compared to other offenders Ireland is way far above the average of nations when it comes to respect of law. I guess that Ireland is even in Europe not within the lowest median of injustice. I see no compelling reason to add a warning because Ireland is compared to it peers rather the norm and not the exception. We all hope the respect for international law and children rights is sustained but the focus should be on nations that are way worse. jan (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jan I appreciate your thoughts. However, Ireland is currently one of the worst if not the worst in Europe with regards to these issues. Other countries in Europe may have human rights issues and children's rights issues, but they do not give the state the right to take children from visitors in law, nor do they target non-nationals with regards to taking children by the state. In fact they often have protections in place that are utilized. I think due to the fact that non-national visitors and international migrant workers' children are being taken and are able to be taken based upon their own cultural views being different from the Irish and that it can result in their children being affected for years and perhaps their entire childhood until the age of 18. It is vital that visitors and those thinking about immigrating to Ireland be made aware. I think it morally wrong not to let people know especially knowing so many immigrant and visitors have lost their children as a result. Like I said before I have encountered many parents who wish they had this information before coming to Ireland. Due to the in-camera rule specific cases cannot be cited. Again I think Ireland has the potential to do and be better. However, currently they lack the desire. And in the mean time parents should be warned before bringing their children to Ireland so that they can be forewarned. This will enable them upon visiting to be careful to follow cultural norms and be aware that certain practices within their own culture could be used as a reason to take their children. Some examples are feeding their child with their fingers/hand, giving their child chores, being a single parent, and so on. These are things that are considered normal and acceptable in many cultures around the world, but in Ireland can be used to obtain a care order to remove a child from the care of his/her parent/s. I think in particular single parents must be warned especially since they do not have the same rights as a married couple when it comes to their children. Being a single parent is seen as grounds for having a child/ren taken away. Even for visiting and immigrant parents. This is not the case in the rest of Europe. I am not aware of any other country in Europe that does that currently. —The preceding comment was added by Humanrightschild (talkcontribs)

Jan is completely right, all this information should be removed. This is a travel wiki, not a political or human rights wiki. We keep the political information here to the bare minimum of facts travelers should be aware of, not topics like these. Globe-trotter (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard of someone visiting Ireland and the state then taking away their children, even if the law technically allows it. As far as I know, it simply doesn't happen. This is not Wikipedia, it's a travel guide and this information is not useful for travelers. 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that Humanrightschild is here on a campaign. It may be entirely justified, and I respect that their intentions may be well founded and honourable. However, their mission isn't our mission. We're a travel guide. --Inas (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is that you wouldn't hear about the cases of Ireland taking the children from visitors because of the in-camera rule in Ireland. However, they do exist. Again the in-camera rule means that anyone reporting the cases would be in contempt of court and can be jailed. I appreciate that this is a travel guide and am not suggesting to highlight all of the human rights issues in Ireland regarding children in this venue. What I am suggesting is to have a warning for parents so that they can take appropriate precautions. I can see no justifiable reason for not providing such a warning in the travel guide when there is a warning for Illegal drug users on the china page and what I am suggesting is a warning for Innocent parents so they can protect their Innocent children. Humanrightschild (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't we just refer to w:A Modest Proposal and be done with it? K7L (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It's enough. Go to Wikipedia. Globe-trotter (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Definitely the content don't belong here and again in-camera laws are common standard for cases involving minors (not juvis). Also Ireland does allow the journalistic discussion about it laws but it bans (again like pretty much every European, US, AUS and Kiwi court) information that lead to a possible identification of the minor. Regards, jan (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am shocked that people, according to your pages, have never been to Ireland and who have no problem with the need to warn illegal drug users in child in the wiki voyage page for China have a problem with warning for Innocent parents so they can protect their Innocent children. There is a current epidemic of innocent children of internationals in Ireland being taken. This is not a Modest Proposal this is now and horrifying and all you want to do is keep silent for what I can see no other reason than you don't want to know and don't care to know. You are obviously not parents, because if you were you would want to know. We're talking breastfeeding babies being taken and not from drug users etc, but from good homes and loving mothers. The spirit of the Magdalene laundries is live and well today. Everyone knew what was and is going on in Ireland and their Prime Minister is still debating an apology for this and the idea that it takes "exceptional circumstances" for this to occur is inaccurate. The HSE rarely have to make a case,the judges just okay practically any request made. and I mean it when I say breastfeeding babies from good mothers. Forget the idea that there is reason in this country regarding children of internationals. Feeding a baby with one's hand is argued as a reason for permanently taking a child. A child doesn't have to be abused to be taken. A child can be poor or from a culture that the Irish do not approve of and the child can be taken. It is argued that the parent(s) cultural values have the potential to harm the child. Globe-Trotter and Jan you are being truly naive. I can't believe I even have to argue for this. Perhaps your just closet Irish and don't want anything to harm it's reputation. Humanrightschild (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's quite enough. If you're only going to be insulting, and you aren't going to provide any concrete evidence that this is something the average traveler needs to worry about, then please just leave. LtPowers (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
To paraphrase yourself, LtPowers: Don't be such a prick and stop trying to get editors to leave this project. If you can't be bothered to do the research yourself, please don't denigrate experts that have. The average traveller with children does need, not to worry about this, but at least be aware - and not just in Ireland but in many countries you may need to ensure that you have the necessary documentation if both parents are not travelling together.
Where I do agree with you is that we need to find a balanced, travel guide focussed way to deal with this. It's a great pity that our current policy does not really allow a short in-line link to Wikipedia so that the amount of detail in a relevant warning does not unbalance the focus of the article. Do we have an article about travelling with children? If so perhaps we could go into detail there and provide a (permissible) internal link. -- 10:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC) --118.93nzp (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Regions division[edit]

It's a little bit wierd the current division, because I haven't found any correspondance (geographical/historical) in any guide that I've consulted. All of them speaks about the four historical provinces of Connacht, Munster, Leinster, Ulster. Some mention Meath where all the other consider it inside Leinster. And about Ulster most of them consider it (obviously) divided into English Ulster and Irish Ulster.

I've read above some concern about the dimension of those provinces, but those provinces can be divided in sub-regions like North Africa that is definitely much bigger than Ireland :-) --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

How many counties would there be per province? I don't think it'd be a good idea to add another level of the hierarchy between the country and county levels. LtPowers (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion we should think more about the correctness of the the current division than the number of levels, because the current one it's really strange. The relationship between the historical provinces and the current articles would be:
- Connacht: West + Sligo and Leitrim (that are inside Northwest Ireland & Lakelands)
- Munster: Southwest, Shannon Region + Waterford county (that is inside Southeast)
- Leinster: East Coast & Midlands + Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford counties (that are inside Southeast)
- Irish Ulster: Cavan, Donegal, Monaghan counties only (that are inside Northwest Ireland & Lakelands) without Sligo and Leitrim
The change it's not so big, but I think it really make a lot of sense. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Leinster would have twelve counties, then; that's a lot of subdivisions for a reader to take in. Of course, given that they're official, maybe that's okay. But keep in mind we have to provide regional breakdowns that make sense for the traveler, not to bureaucrats or even necessarily locals. LtPowers (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If we agree on the approach of dividing the country in the 4 historical regions/provinces, that we can decide on how divide each one of them, and I see to different approaches:
1) Directly into the contained counties (as you said)
2) Using the above subregion as an intermediate layer
In my opinion with the second approach we should apply few modification on the current articles because we'll reuse most of the existing ones as they are and at the same time we shouldn't risk to have too much information in any of the four new ones. --Andyrom75 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how we could preserve the current regional breakdown if we go with four super-regions. For example, Northwest Ireland and Lakelands would be split between Irish Ulster and Connacht, and Southeast Ireland would be split between Munster and Leinster. LtPowers (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on the appropriateness of the regions themselves (I'm not knowledgeable enough), I do think it would be best to try to not reduce the number of regions. If anything, increasing them would be helpful. I agree with LtPowers that it would harm the Ireland guide to introduce yet another layer of mostly blank region articles. Readers are more likely to stop reading our guide altogether when it looks like we lack useful content (before getting to the good stuff at the bottom of the geographical hierarchy). --Peter Talk 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think different. Before getting into details I need to know which are the areas with common backgroud in order to organize my trip and the historical regions are the primary step for that. I may understand the reluctance in revisiting a group of articles already done, but the current division it's very "creative". It's like dividing Italy, as first layer, into provinces instead of regions or macro-areas (i.e. north, center, south), it simply doesn't make sense for any readers because it goes too much in details. Furthermore the common features like culture, history, etc. should be repeated into the various articles, instead on concentrate it into the "parents" ones. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Italy has six top-level regions; Ireland has seven. That seems pretty comparable. LtPowers (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
They are not. Italy has ~300K km² while Ireland has ~70K km² (~85K km² if you include English territory as well). However, in my opinion it's not a matter of "quantity" but it's a matter of "quality". Because the current layer division it's not based on a significant history/geographical difference. Easter Island in Chile it's a tiny island, but it make sense to be a 1st layer division, because its history (not only the geographical position) it totaly different from the rest of the continental land. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you are seeing more resistance to a change than there actually is, and I fully agree that a division that helps inform a traveler regarding culture and history is ideal. My concern is just organizational—having two layers before reaching the county articles is not user-friendly navigation. It's a matter of both quantity and quality. Is there any other option than the four that would still allow more informative, interesting travel writing than we have now? --Peter Talk 17:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As said above, all the sources I've consulted speak about those four provinces so I can't figure out an alternative for the 1st layer. Maybe we can discuss about what the second layer would be:
Opt1) The existing territories (with minor changes in few of them)
Opt2) The counties inside to each provinces
Personally I prefer Opt1 because I don't see any issue with adding a layer (see Germany for example), however, in principle I have nothing in contrary with Opt2. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
What's your opinion about it? --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
(RFC response) After reading through most of this talk page I get the impression that the current regional divisions are based largely on the arbitrary limit of 9 counties per region. If there is a more natural or logical reason for the current regional breakdown I have missed it. As a complete outsider to the problem, the provincial split makes more sense to me, with the proviso that Ulster should be specified as Irish Ulster (as opposed to British Ulster). I feel that I can manage numbers greater than 9 without much difficulty, but if they remain offensive to others the provinces could be split where a logical and useful distinction can be made that would actually provide sub-regions which are notably different (a lead paragraph to distinguish each sub-region from the rest of the province should be easy to write and contain significant information). Splitting into sub-regions just for the sake of keeping the number of counties to less than 9 does not look very useful to the traveler. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree on specificing explicitely the division between Irish and British Ulster. Afterwards we could/should also revise the Ulster disambiguation page in order to properly index the two pages. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think we want to make navigation from top-level regions to individual articles as painless as possible. I'm not hugely familiar with the counties of Ireland and their obvious groupings, but if we could find a compromise between that and using historically and geographically recognisable names then that would seem the best way to go. --Nick talk 09:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
So Nick you would go for option2 (i.e. each historical region will contain directly its countships)? --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow reply! Yes, I think so, though I don't claim to be an authority on the subject. --Nick talk 19:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate truism that Irishmen are obsessed with history, but I would prefer (what is for me) the natural hierarchy of the four provinces divided into the historic counties (these have been officially abolished in Northern Ireland,but everyone here is still very aware of the old county boundaries) and making clear the difference between "UK" Ulster and "IE" Ulster. -- 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm about as far from Ireland as it's possible to get and remain on this planet, but I would also agree with Nick and keep the natural hierarchy of the four historic provinces divided into the historic counties. -- 10:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC) --118.93nzp (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone start drawing a map of Ireland (according to the voy standard) based on the 4 historical provinces? --Andyrom75 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Quickbar - RoI and NI[edit]

An IP user has just removed the quickbar from this page, citing the fact that it applies only to the Republic of Ireland. I can completely understand this view, though I have reverted the change to ask for some opinions. Is it time to admit defeat on this one and establish separate NI and RoI articles at this point? Whilst it is nice to think of them as one region, there still exists many differences between the nations as has been noted previously (see above). If we do persist with Ireland as region, it might be best to remove the quickbar or institute some form of hybrid. Any thoughts would be welcome! --Nick talk 22:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It is time for completely separate NI and RoI articles. NI is already a region of the United Kingdom, and we should just make this article concerned with the RoI only. As far as the country level things, currency, visas, etc differ entirely between the two entities. --Inas (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
We already have separate articles. This article says "This article is primarily concerned with the Republic of Ireland". And we have Northern Ireland. I don't see the issue. LtPowers (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the issue is that Northern Ireland has its own article, but it's also mentioned rather a lot in this one as part of a 'region'. Unfortunately, I think we have the worst of both worlds at present. --Nick talk 18:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Can you be specific? Most of what I'm seeing is convenience links for people who might be confused due to the similarity between the name of the country and the name of the island. LtPowers (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The entire Understand section for a start, currently deals with Ireland as a region consisting of NI and RoI. --Inas (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Only in an historical sense, which seems perfectly appropriate, as the pre-Republic history incorporates both. LtPowers (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't in the history section - both the lede and the first paragraph of the understand section treated it as a region - in addition to it being a region in the region diagram. Anyway, I've removed otheruses, I've added a specialist disamb notice. I've removed the region into prose. I've moved the historical information on the 32 counties below the history heading. I've tried to replace that with a lede that isn't a geopolitical intro, but is rather a visitor intro - however at that point I've just failed, and the lede I've written is rubbish. WIP. --Inas (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it was just in the history section. The very first sentence of the Understand section started "The island of Ireland historically consists of 32 counties" (emphasis mine). I really don't see the problem you do, but I appreciate your efforts to improve the article. LtPowers (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
As argued above, travelers visit Ireland, not Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, and I think our travel guide should reflect that. We do endorse a nationalistic view of travel at Wikivoyage, but the argument for that has always been that it's necessary because of the regulations imposed by national governments. But there are no visa regimens to worry about here—I think ghettoizing the Northern Ireland content isn't helpful for the traveler. --Peter Talk 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a certain sympathy for that stance, but have you thought about the implications if that stance were adopted across the Schengen area? If we take that to the logical conclusion then, for those countries in both the Schengen and the Euro area, that will lead to an awful lot of debate about re-jigging whole regions and abolishing the "country" articles on Belgium and the Netherlands, etc... Although it's a common travel area (like Schengen, or Canada and the USA used to be) the currencies, language and shape of road signs, the colour of the road markings and whether the police are routinely armed, change when you travel from Dundalk to Newry but remain the same on a journey from Antwerp to Breda. --W. Frankemailtalk 22:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Two points.
Firstly, the need to have to start the article with geopolitical guff, rather than the reasons we need to visit is a bad thing. I noticed it has reappeared. What the country is officially called, may be worth a mention, but in the lede is wrong.
Secondly, in direct contradiction to what Peter said, there is definitely a visa regime, and it is a complex one. Going from the UK to Northern Ireland requires no checks at all. Going from the UK to Ireland does. If you don't have the right visas or exemptions you'll be refused entry or deported. The visa checks are more important than between Germany/France.
Also, (three points?) the article does only cover RoI, not Northern Ireland. It is just confusing in its structure so the traveller may not realise that they should be looking elsewhere for that info. So, integrate away if you want to if you think it is in the interest of the traveller, but lets not make the information separate, but this article confusingly pretend to cover it. --Inas (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the situation with the border is but the traveler comes first. If the border is almost completely open then the article should be all-Ireland. A "border" that has little effect on the traveler much is far less impotent then the Irish Sea, a border that severely effects the traveler. Of coerce this is based on a big if; the tighter the border is, the stronger the case for Republic-only is. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Even with open borders, there's still a pretty strong question of identity. Imagine fully open borders between Israel proper and the West Bank. If that ever happened, the West Bank would still have a pretty strong sense of different identity, with many people considering themselves not to be Israelis, much as most Protestants in Northern Ireland wouldn't be caught dead contemplating being citizens of the Republic of Ireland or under her government. I think there's an analogy to be made there. Northern Ireland should be covered separately, in my opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The locals can consider themselves whatever they want, but our primary concern is the traveler. That's not to say that Northern Ireland necessarily shouldn't receive it's own dedicated page tough, cultural distinction alone is a good argument for making it one of the region pages. If nothing else, NI could always be an extra-hierarchical region.Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with Ikan Kekek here. The border between the two countries is, as far as I can tell, completely open, but whilst I understand your points Emmette, I don't think we can take open borders alone as a cue to merge the two. Many countries in continental Europe have open borders but merging them (say France and the Netherlands) is unimaginable. Indeed there are major differences between the two countries (not least currency, culture and (arguably?) language). Whilst there are several pan-Hibernian institutions (the GAA amongst others?), I think it's important for the traveller that they are aware of this division and so don't cause offence on either side of the border. If we were to merge the two, this article would need a complete rewrite to establish the island's duality. I'd be interested to hear what someone from Ireland (Northern or the Republic) had to say on this issue. --Nick talk 01:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Map is out of date[edit]

Ireland regions map2.png

This map of Ireland is very out of date at this stage. The country's motorway network has seen major expansion since this map was drawn. Here's a more up to date map of the road network. 17:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

However, since the map is primarily used to show our regional division of Ireland - rather than for road navigation, it might be best to conclude the discussion at Talk:Ireland#Regions_division before we replace it... -- 22:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

New map & new region division[edit]

Ireland divided into the 4 historical regions

As per previous discussions on the regions and on the map, new map has been developed to visualize both considerations and get consensus before make any substantial change over the article(s). Here on the left the new map. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The discontinuity in Ulster is highly unusual. Am I correct that these are historical regions rather than modern? Powers (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
User:LtPowers: The map was created using this map. Also please take a look at the map here. --Saqib (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that doesn't well answer my question, though perhaps I should be more specific: are these political boundaries only, or are they useful divisions for the traveler? Powers (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah okay. In that case, I'll leave it onto others to answer since I don't have any expertise on this. I only created the map on the request of User:Andyrom75. But yes your concerns about discontinuity are valid. --Saqib (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
User:LtPowers: These are old administrative boundaries, no longer valid. To be honest, I created the map in a hurry longtime ago. Please, take a look here --Gobbler (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
User:LtPowers correct, as said by Gobbler, those are the historical regions, not the modern ones, so more interesting for travellers. You can get more information for example on wikipedia. --Andyrom75 (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
More interesting, perhaps, but only more useful if the traveler is traveling with an interest in history. The discontinuity of Ulster due to the existence of Northern Ireland makes this regional breakdown problematic. Powers (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
User:LtPowers history is the mother of culture so tourists will see the "effect" of it all around (like almost all the touristic regions) although they didn't know anything about history; our purpose is to guide them. In previous discussions other users supported this division, that's way (finally) has been developed this map, to help to plunge forward the change. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I hate to harp on this point, but not all travelers are tourists. And I also think having a discontinuous region is problematic from a traveler's perspective. Powers (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a viewpoint on whether the regions for Ireland should be changed, but I'd point out that Ulster is not actually discontinuous, as there is no impediment to people driving across the border and through Northern Ireland from one section of the Irish Republic to another. As the UK and Ireland are both members of the EU, the borders are open. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think no one will be able to sort out a global solution for all wv language versions. While the current hierarchy here is based on Fáilte Ireland, the National Tourism Development Authority, wv non-English speaking communities are free to take alternative decisions evaluating different criteria --Gobbler (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As Ikan Kekek has correctly highlighted, there's no physical obstacle on traveling in/out the two Irish portions of Ulster (that however are quite close to each other), furthermore I do not see a logic/turistic advantage on forcing their union like in one of the current division. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't understand how the ability to travel between two discontinuous areas of a region negates the discontinuity. Powers (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Northern Ireland is also Ulster. So Ulster is not discontinuous, it's just that most of it is currently part of the UK, with the rest being within the Irish Republic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're conflating Ulster, the historical region, with Ulster, our (potential) region article. The latter most certainly does not include Northern Ireland, which is in a separate branch of our hierarchy. Powers (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I've made my point clearly and you understand it, right? So rather than beating a dead horse, I'd like to ask you what alternative regional structure you'd prefer for the Irish Republic on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't understand how the ability to travel between two non-adjacent sections of a region makes it non-discontinuous. As for "alternative regional structures", I don't have an opinion; I'm merely questioning the propriety of this particular proposal for a new structure. Powers (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I take it, you prefer to keep the current regional structure? Any reason in addition to your objection to this discontinuity? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I don't have a preference; I'm just pointing out a potential problem with the proposal. Discontinuities are problematic because regions should be coherent travel regions, and having two parts separated by a different travel region is confusing and makes it hard to write about the two segments jointly. Powers (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to nitpick, but there are no travel restrictions based on existing agreement between UK and Ireland : w:Common_Travel_Area
Neither country belongs to the European w:Schengen_Area , so that would not be a valid reason. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I beg your pardon if I meddle in this discussion; My two cents about: The issue concerning the "most proper" subdivision of Ireland - as I see - grinds on intermittently since 2007. Even though I agree with Gobbler that it's quite difficult "to sort out a global solution for all wv language versions", I think that an attempt should be made in this direction as it entails many advantages for us as editors and also for travelers. I have firstly to admit I'm a complete outsider to the problem. So as an outsider I've tried to compare this article as currently divided and few other sources both online and printed ones trying to imagine myself as a person who's planning to visit Ireland. As result I feel led to agree with Andyrom and the new proposed map. As also Peterfitzgerald said in a precedent comment, "Travelers visit Ireland, not Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland". IMO it could be translated in practice with the effort of creating a subdivision that reflects cultural, historical related differences which in most cases are also helpful for visitors touristic differences, regardless to administrative discontinuities or boundaries. I've also read some anonymous comments which stressed the great importance of history and of the the traditional four-province system. Again, if you check events, museums, buildings, local traditions and in the broadest sense Point of interests, you'll get a clear and immediate impression of how important the subdivision in four province still is (not only for visitors with an historic interest). It would consequently make more sense to describe this PoI within the subdivision sketched by the new map.
Regarding the discontinuity pointed out by Powers, I think it isn't by no means a problem , since - as well underlined by Andrewssi2 and before by other users - there are no restrictions between the two countries. So, my question: What's actually the problem with the new proposed division, if it allows a more pertinent description of the cultural, touristic and historical areas? --Nastoshka (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
If there are no further objections I would start on reorganize the articles in the next days. --Andyrom75 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I just reread some of this thread, and I'd like to apologize to Powers if I came across as rude. I don't really have a stake in the outcome of this disagreement, and I do think that Powers has a point, though I won't object to a change, myself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ikan. I don't believe my objection to the proposed regional division has been addressed. It is very unusual to have discontinuous travel regions; it seems like it would require most of the article sections to be divided up based on which half of the region one is in. Powers (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Road Network[edit]

Nice to see some progress on updating the map. Some errors I've noticed with the road network:

  • N6: The N6 road between Athlone and Dublin should be marked as the M6. Only a small section of the N6 around Athlone is not Motorway. Not enough to be marked on a map of this detail.
  • N20: Only a small section of road outside Limerick is motorway. I don't think it's enough for this map.
  • N9: Entire route is motorway. Should be marked as M9.
  • N7: This is motorway all the way to Limerick. Should be marked as M7.
  • N10: Route number is obscured by the Kilkenny dot.
  • N11: This road alternates between motorway and non motorway sections. Not sure how it should be marked, just thought I'd bring it to peoples attention.

Also, why are the road numbers inside blue and purple pentagons? Would it not be more useful to show them in the same colors and format as seen on actual signs in Ireland? 2A02:8084:9300:A80:90AD:946E:EF56:F50 20:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the symbols of the roads in the new map should be the official ones. Pentagons is/was a wierd choice. --Andyrom75 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Regions the third[edit]

The "region discussion" tag is still on the main page... What should we do? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like there is no regions discussion being had any more Hobbitschuster , so I'll just remove. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


@The dog2: To belatedly answer your question, because travellers can be in emotional distress just as much as the rest of us, but are especially vulnerable when they're in that situation on their own in a foreign country. If you're not from Ireland, you probably won't know such a service even exists, and even if you did, you wouldn't know what its name was or how to contact.

It's not relevant for everyone, thankfully, but in my personal view, this hotline is almost as important for some travellers to know as the number for local emergency services. For this reason, I also added the same infobox to UK#Stay safe, and a similar, more international one to Travelling with a mental health condition.

So unless you have a more compelling argument than "not relevant to travellers" (when of course it is), I don't support your deletion. I am certainly open to changing the wording ("Are you in crisis?" may, with hindsight, come across as alarmist), or to putting the information into the main body of the article rather than in an infobox, if that was part of your concerns. The reason I chose an infobox, however, is that most people will not be hunting through a travel guide to find a particular number, but people who do need the number, perhaps without realising it, will find it when perusing a relevant section of the guide.

If we can find a compromise, that would be best. Looking forward to your reply. Apologies for the lateness on my part. Best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. I just thought that it is highly unlikely for someone to need their services while only holiday or business trips. Of course, if you move there, that's a different issue. We don't have similar organisations listed in our other country articles. In Singapore, we have the Samaritans of Singapore, and it is not listed anywhere in the article. (But it's true that it's primarily marketed to children, even though its services are technically available to anybody) If you're willing to make a case that this information should be included in all our country articles, I'd be happy to see what the community says. The dog2 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick answer. With respect, I'm not sure a case needs to be made for their inclusion in every country article, and at any rate I am not arguing for this to be the case. Not all services are the same, as you've rightly pointed out, and some countries don't seem to have a unified national service but rather regional/local services, or nothing at all. I only really know about the Samaritans UK and Ireland.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Should we transfer this conversation to the pub and see what the community says. I'm not entirely convinced that the Samaritans need to be included in the main country articles since the vast majority of visitors won't need them, but I wouldn't mind putting some information about them in articles about working or studying, since longer term visitors are more likely to have the need for their services. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about this one, and I'm happy to go with whatever the community decides. The dog2 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it's OK to include their number along with numbers to call the police, firefighters and for an ambulance. It could just be listed as "Samaritans (confidential mental health hotline)". Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That works for me. The dog2 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
And for me too, rather than labouring the point in an infobox. I accept that they are only useful to a minority of travellers, but for that minority they could be extremely useful, and even life saving. Really appreciate IK's suggestion, and dog's openness to compromise. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

County Dublin[edit]

Three "cities" within historic County Dublin are scraps and there's little reason to visit them. I propose mergers for:

Portmarnock probably to merge into Malahide to the north; or maybe at a pinch into Sutton with Howth to the south.
Skerries to merge into Balbriggan, a good match because it has accommodation, which Balbriggan is short of.
Rush and a few bits and bobs from Lusk, probably also to Balbriggan, feels like too long a stretch from Malahide.

Views? Grahamsands (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to make an informed decision, because I don't know the area, but they are very bare outlines. If you know the area, and think the merges would improve Wikivoyage, then I say go for it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. Portmarnock -> Malahide, Rush -> Balbriggan and Skerries -> Balbriggan. Grahamsands (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
On the County Dublin talk page, I propose redirecting Cabinteely into Dun Laoghaire. Grahamsands (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

County Clare[edit]

See County Clare Talk page for an explanation of recent work, and proposal to merge / redirect four scrappy pages: Craggaunowen > Ennis, Querrin > Kilkee, Liscannor > Lahinch, Cliffs of Moher > Doolin. Grahamsands (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Yes Done

County Galway[edit]

See County Galway Talk page for a summary of recent work, and proposal to merge subregions East Galway and Connemara to County Galway, Castlegar to Galway city, and Clonbur into Cong in County Mayo. Grahamsands (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC) - DONE

County Tipperary[edit]

See County Tipperary Talk for a summary of recent work. I propose merging Holycross into nearby Thurles. Grahamsands (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC) - DONE

Brexit and Königsberg[edit]

The interesting and amusing box added by user:Grahamsands might be better placed on Britain and Ireland, since it's largely about the recent and near-future relationship between our countries and mostly (or totally) caused by the UK's insistence on leaving the single market and customs union. Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I was tempted to post it on Калинингра́д / - like the Common Travel Area, there are several possible destination pages. Just so long as it's cross-referenced elsewhere, because there's issues here that the traveller really needs to be alert to. The serious core of that infobox is the mathematical impossibility of what is being proposed, ergo it could all come crashing down at short notice. Grahamsands (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that anything in that box counts as necessary information in that not knowing any of it wouldn't prevent someone from travelling legally to Ireland. By contrast, it is necessary to talk about the CTA in 'Britain and Ireland', as well as on both the UK and Ireland pages. Still, knowing about the practical impossibilities of Brexit is interesting, and you wrote about it in an unusual way, so it certainly has a place somewhere on WV. Do you have any particular objection to, or preference against, moving the box to 'Britain and Ireland'? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Taking your silence as consent, I have plunged forward. Bon week-end ;) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

County Cork[edit]

See County Cork Talk for a summary of recent work, and a proposal to merge Douglas > Cork and Rosscarbery > Clonakilty. Grahamsands (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC) - DONE

County Leitrim[edit]

See County Leitrim for a summary of recent work, and a proposal to merge Dromahair > Manorhamilton.

See also Ireland’s Hidden Heartlands - eventually this should redirect into one of the Shannon counties, but only once they're useable. Grahamsands (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

County Louth[edit]

See County Louth for a summary of recent work, and a proposal to merge Ardee to the county page. Grahamsands (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)