Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games

WikiProject Gaelic games was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 16 February 2009.

Archives

2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 •

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Input sought on a possible big cleanup of a widespread minor issue: breaches of MOS:IMOS COUNTIES. This relates to all 32 traditional counties of Ireland, including the six counties of Northern Ireland.

The discussion is at WT:WikiProject Ireland#IMOS COUNTIES cleanup, where your input will be welcome. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At present Camogie is rated as Mid-importance on the project's scale, while Ladies' Gaelic football is rated as Low-importance on the project's scale.

I think it's obvious enough they both should be rated as top-importance as I think they are both "a must-have for a print encyclopedia". Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur 100%. A "mid" rating might just about be justifiable (for either) in the context of WikiProject Ireland. But relative to this project (WikiProject Gaelic games) both are and should clearly be rated as "high" importance. The current rating, for Ladies' Gaelic football in particular, looks to have been an honest mistake/error along the way. If you changed either/both to "high", I can't imagine who would object (and what reasonable basis there could be for an objection). Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Guliolopez, thanks for your reply. I agree that there'd likely be no objections to a "high" importance rating for this project, but I think both should be given a "top" importance rating, in line with both the hurling and gaelic football pages.

I thought it prudent to seek a consensus before making any changes. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya @Boardwalk.Koi. Apologies. I read your note too quickly and misread/misunderstood your point. Or didn't pay enough attention to the difference between "high" and "top". In any event, I agree that Camogie and Ladies' Gaelic football are just as "important" (and in some cases perhaps more "important") than the other members of the "Top-importance Gaelic games" ranked/categorised articles. And, at least, cannot support a situation where individual sportspeople or venues are considered "top" importance, while an entire macro-level topic (like Camogie) is classified as lower/lesser. Definitely Camogie (and probably also Ladies' Gaelic football) should likely be re-ranked to the "top" Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand I've made those rating changes now. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. FYI. I also re-rated two articles - as I do not see how either could possibly be considered as meeting the top-level criteria. (Duggan Park is "top", while Pearse/Semple/Breffni/Gaelic Grounds/Casement/etc are as much as two "rankings" lower in importance? Nope...) Guliolopez (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea. I have seen an article being shot down because there was not enough notability for the men's hurling and football teams (true), completely ignoring three county titles in a row (sourced) for the camogie-ladies. The Banner talk 17:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree the ratings on those two articles were too high. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The List of All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship winners and List of All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship finals articles are very similar. I think either one of them should be deleted or both articles be merged. (78.19.48.239 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

A number of articles in the sequences that include 1971 All-Ireland Under-21 Football Championship and 1971 All-Ireland Minor Football Championship use {{Infobox}} rather than a more specific infobox template. Is there one that would be better? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Muldoon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to loose my cool with the edits of an editor. In this case, it are the edits of Budisgood. His GAA edits usually lacks sources and are often of poor quality/relevance. Especially the lack of quality and relevance is an issue for me. Examples of his problematic edits (not only GAA-related): Arles county laois, not-so-short short description on Tinnahinch GAA and adding GAA-clubs as formal part of a Roman-Catholic parish. Discussions and warnings proved fruitless so far. Anybody has ideas how improvements in the edits of Budisgood can be achieved? The Banner talk 04:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solved, as the editor is blocked indefinitely. The Banner talk 15:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]