Talk:List of monastic houses in Ireland

[Untitled]

I've been trying to fill in some of the open links on this page. So far, I've done Ross Errilly Friary and Clonard Abbey. Just began Claregalway Friary today. Dppowell 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck. I have visited most of the sites over the past 7 years, but I have not yet embarked on such a mammoth task as writing about them. --JohnArmagh 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Have to start somewhere, right?  :) Dppowell 20:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Claregalway Friary and Corcomroe Abbey

New pages for both. Claregalway was featured on Did You Know? last week, and I'll nominate Corcomroe shortly. Dppowell 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Stub up for Canon Island Abbey

Getting back on the stick... Dppowell 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Stub up for Multyfarnham Friary

RIL Dppowell 00:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject assessments

The whole of Category:Monasteries in the Republic of Ireland has been assessed under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland. If you've filled in a red link on this list, please slap an assessment template on the new article's talk page. Thanks! Dppowell 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Tully Abbey pic

Someone has put my Tully Abbey (Co. Kildare) image into the section on Tullow Abbey, (Co. Carlow). PeterClarke 08:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Page size

Is this page too big? Should there be a separate page for each County? PeterClarke 16:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be indeed helpful to create lists per county and per order. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Support split by county - I support splitting the article by county. I will leave the split tag up for some time to see if there is support for doing so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Depends on what the end result would be. The List of monastic houses in England is a longer page, but it is constructed of transclusions to lists for each county. If this list is split it should be done to conform to the same format, so that there is still a single list (to aid someone searching a listing for which they do not know the county). If the current list is simply replaced by a list of pages to each county the purpose of the existence of the page would effectively be nullified. Who is willing to volunteer for such a task? JohnArmagh (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(Additionally, the toolong tag is not necessarily appropriate for this article - see Wikipedia:Article size#Lists.2C_tables_and_summaries) JohnArmagh (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Tuppence worth from New Zealand... How about split into existing and historic (no longer visitable for various reasons) list pages. Or individual linked pages for each existing monastic house and smaller pictures on the main list page to reduce overall size and remove geo refs and populate same on individual pages, as geo refs are somewhat redundant on main list page as we already now the county and have a fair idea, oops that was a shillings work, good work tho team
The Original Filfi (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Existing (i.e. extant) would be a very small list - not to mention that modern establishments close down or change their location, making them historical. Most sites are visitable even if they are no longer extant - i.e. ruins. The idea of the list is to represent a gazetteer of the site of every monastic establishment in Ireland, in the same format as those for England, Wales and Scotland. Dividing them by county should be sufficient - sub dividing them again according to some criteria would make the project very messy and inconsistent, and ultimately arbitrary. JohnArmagh (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - split by county I support splitting the article by province instead. The Proffesor (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi JohnArmagh, I have reviewed the England articles I notice a significant set of contributions from yourself, top work, I also note there seems to be some minor positional errors on most of the articles with regard to picture or map local placements, probably beyond me at the moment to fix, I also note that the total page use the "Transclusion" function, to make any errors or addition only have to be amended on one article only and then populates to the main etc, this reduces the main page size on the server, but still loads significant amounts of information for the user, is this where this page is heading in due course? Is there anything I could assist with?
Kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify as regards "positional errors"? I think the Ireland page will have to go the same way as the England page, including the exclusion of the co-ordinates and references from the "total" page, if only because, as was the case with England, the number of references and co-ordinates exceeded that which can be handled by Wikipedia on a single page - leading to them not being displayed after that limit is reached. At present I am gradually going through the counties including the information from Gwynn & Hadcock Medieval Religious Houses: Ireland, as I have time, and which is taking a while and I am currently working on Co. Limerick. JohnArmagh (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi JohnArmagh an example would be List of monastic houses in Essex where the lead section does not fit the page, so to speak, maybe the picture is too big? Another worse example List of monastic houses in Scotland where the map and "pogs" do not line up correctly and then obscures toc or keys etc. I tried to fix List of monastic houses in Norfolk, less than successfully to be honest. I can strip the co-ord of each districts page and display as text on the main pages as part of the notes, not sure that adds much value though?The Original Filfi (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree - it is a question of trying to find a happy medium between presentation and the limitations of the code. I certainly haven't stumbled upon a better solution - I am not even sure that the methods on List of monastic houses in Cornwall is a way forward. JohnArmagh (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I have a positive first step (I think) can we split the template into 2 templates, one for the lead section and another for the Abr. and key, this will make positioning each more clean and allow for a little more discretion in placing maps etc in the most relevant place, another thing I may try to work on is an interwiki link for the pogs, so that clicking a pog will take the user to the listing on the same page, only if they then wish for further details do they click on the link in the listing itself to link to the main article, thoughts?The Original Filfi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC) redating myself to know when answer is posted is all.The Original Filfi (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Re Cornwall, I had a play on my sandbox and fixed some issues there as a test only and can possibly see some way forward, as an aside though, I created a new map on commons that may be of some use, thought? [1]. Going out for a beer or two now, so more tomorrow. The Original Filfi (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, please find a link to my talk page pog experiment for your review, User_talk:The_Original_Filfi#Monastic_pogging_experiments.. I am still working on ref and co-ords solution, I will update when close or done, also I can write a tool to update the agreed new formats across each section quite easily to do all of one sub-page at once, better to finish all experiments and clean ups first though.The Original Filfi (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again v2, added on the same experiment page I have moved the reference, added targeted links for locations, for your review.The Original Filfi (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm - OK, my thoughts - I can see where you are going, and the rationale behind it, however from a practical point of view, as I visit the sites I go to the one I want on the list and I punch the coordinates into my satnav - and sometimes create an itinerary of visits for the day, or week. It is easy to do that when I can see the coordinates displayed on the list - but it would make it rather more of a chore to click on each link to see what the coordinates are - especially possibly paying data charges, or sitting in a car in the middle of nowhere with no data signal - being able to download the page onto the iPad and having it all there when I call it up is handy. I suspect it would be the same for someone else who wishes to visit the less-well-know sites. JohnArmagh (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just wrote a new tool to convert, can add to the greater tool no worries, please re-review, cheersThe Original Filfi (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool - that's nice. Text size is a bit overwhelming though, can it be made a touch smaller? JohnArmagh (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, and added leading zeros missed on first draft, I am working on other bits as well and have just discovered a way to combine many tables into a one large sortable single table, not sure if this is of use to us, unless we transclude into, for example NI and Eire and then transclude those two into the "main table", just to let you know, please ponder on it. 1.29am in NZ now so off for the night.The Original Filfi (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is ridiculously long. It needs to be split by province -- Leinster, Munster, Ulster and Connaught. And what is with the oversized text?? It is unprofessional looking, filled with dead links, difficult to almost impossible (depending on your computer and browser) to navigate and those who have contributed to the ridiculous size and length need to step up and fix the article. Quis separabit? 03:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1) The page conforms to the standard of the List of monastic houses in England, which is far longer, as well as to List of monastic houses in Scotland and List of monastic houses in Wales. It is intended as a comprehensive list of monastic establishments.

2) To split the article into provinces would be counter-productive - it would mean you have to know which province an establishment was located in order to search for it.

3) There is no "oversized text" - rather, the text in the columns other than the name of the establishment is smaller to make best use of available space.

4) If you don't like the dead links then rather than gripe about it, perhaps you should do something about it - or would that be too much effort?

5) I have spent many, many hours working on the article, as with its sister articles. To say that someone should "step up" is highly condescending coming from someone who has nothing constructive to offer. And if you want something professional, perhaps you should send me the address to which you can send your payment for my services? JohnArmagh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(Oh, and btw, when I have finished the current work on the final fourteen counties it will be even longer). JohnArmagh (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Replies to above

• I realize this is a labor of love for you and that's fine. I respect your dedication and you've done yeoman work, BUT:

1) I am not the only editor who knows this article/list is way too long; you, however, have no intention of acting on our suggestions. Therefore, since no one owns anything on this encyclopaedia and given the difficulties the length poses and the fact that it is kind of an eysore with its oversized fonts (thus oversized text) and varying column lengths, any editor can take the matter to DR but I, for one, am willing to wait until you finish.

2) When you state "The page conforms to the standard of the List of monastic houses in England, which is far longer", I don't understand. The total size of the English article/list is 25,797 bytes (last time I checked). This article (the Irish houses list) is 416,063 bytes (last time I checked), so I don't get whatever it is that you're trying to say here.

3) When you say "There is no "oversized text", I am rethought and decided that I may have misworded that comment.What is true is that the font size for the Irish monastic houses article/list What I mean to say is that the font size for the monastic houses in Ireland list article is about 3 or 4 times larger than normal article sized fonts. This is not my opinion, this is eyesight. Just compare/contrast the font size on the English houses list and this article, except for West Sussex, which is the same sized font as the Irish monastic houses page, for some strange reason; the only English component to do so.

4) Ireland was not a 32 county country until several centuries ago after English colonization. Not to discuss politics just to point out that prior to that it was provinces, comprised of counties, and even by septs or clans, as I am sure you must be aware. Why would there much problem in using the provinces or even the counties? Any border questions which are problematic in determining to which county or province a monastic house belongs can be dealt with using footnotes and/or sidenotes.

5) "I have spent many, many hours working on the article, as with its sister articles" -- like I said I respect your dedication to the pages but that doesn't mean no one can criticize them. And as far as being condescending, actually I tried to manually adjust the text by changing the "larger" to "smaller" but failed miserably. Maybe this is because you imported the lists by county into the general articles or whatever. I don't know how you set up these pages but I repeat this one is too long and the text looks like it was designed for seeing-challenged if not the legally blind. So I called (as per WP:BOLD) for someone to step up because I know I am not the only one who has questioned (and then some) this article length/size.

6) How come you didn't include a List of monastic houses in Ireland#top|Return to top of page after each county in this article where they are far more sorely needed than in the relatively tiny (compared to this article) sister articles? Just wondering. Maybe you didn't get to it yet.

7) "(Oh, and btw, when I have finished the current work on the final fourteen counties it will be even longer)" -- is that supposed to be a threat?

8) By all means send me a bill if/when you fix what I have referenced above. I'll be happy to pay. LOL.

Yours, Quis separabit? 19:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A list is as long as the number of items in the scope of that list determines it to be. The number of bytes an article is does not indicate how long it is: the reason the England list has fewer bytes is that each county is a separate page, transcluded into the main list. This could be done for the Ireland page, but it would not make the Ireland page itself any smaller or more navigable. Any differences in the individual English lists has been down to people with an apparent interest in a particular county editing that county's list away from the standard I had implemented for the whole. I see no more benefit in having a list according to Irish counties or provinces instead of a list for the whole island than making do with the counties list in England instead of the list for that region as a whole - there is no benefit in having to know which county an establishment is in before one can find its reference. As it stands a foundation can be found by merely using <ctrl>f - the list even includes variations of name and spelling to aid the search. I did not import any of it. What you see is what I typed it out, with help from additional contributors. JohnArmagh (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I came here after a message on my talk page from Rms125a. I have to agree that this page needs splitting. It currently has over 247,000 bytes of readable prose, which is 2.5 the 100K threshold at which WP:SIZERULE says that a page should "almost certainly should be divided".

I know that JohnArmagh is not keen on this, but the article has long been well into the size bracket for a split, and has been tagged for a split since November 2013. I think it would be wrong to wait any longer.

I have handled some big lists by splitting them, and then transcluding the components. See for example List of National Monuments of Ireland, which I split in 2010; or List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1832. Both split into sub-pages, and combined as one sortable list. The List of National Monuments of Ireland is set up so that it works both a set of standalone lists by county, with a navbox linking them and as a combined list. So if the combined list is deleted, nothing is lost.

There are other ways of splitting a list, and transcluding the bits is not a requirement. In fact, there comes a point where size makes even that undesirable, and this list is getting near that point.

However, the pressing matter is to split. The question is what units to split it into. I would prefer a split by county, for 3 reasons:

1. all the primary navigation structures for Irish topics are split by county. Splitting this list in the same way ensures that it fits best alongside other related pages
2. A split by province will still leave the individual pages a little on the large size. Even if the current list is split evenly, there will be 4 pages of an average 60K each, but some will be bigger than that average. So even before any expansion, most of the content would still be in the 60K+ "probably should be divided" bracket per WP:SIZERULE.
3. A split by province leaves Ulster straddling the RoI/NI border. That makes categoriaation and navboxes a bit clumsy. Not a huge issue, but one I think is better avoided.

I hope that a consensus can be reached soon on how to split. If not, an early RFC would be appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Note the following from WP:SIZERULE (emphasis added by me)

"Please note:

These rules of thumb only apply to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means). It also applies somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table."

Re: However, the pressing matter is to split. - not necessarily so pressing: [[2]] JohnArmagh (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And again, if the article is split into counties instead of rather than in addition to an article for the whole of Ireland, the reader is still left with having to search through the county lists to find an establishment where the reader does not know the county. Additionally there are establishments where the county is not known. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: " and this list is getting near that point." - in which case the England list is way beyond that point. So is it proposed to delete that page and force the reader to search through the county lists currently transcluded in it? JohnArmagh (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

JohnArmagh, thanks for your reply. I dunno about the English list, because I haven't assessed it. This discussion is about the Irish list.

You are right that WP:SIZERULE is less strict about lists. If this page was 120K or 150K, I'd say leave it be. But at 2.5 times the limit, it's way beyond the margins, and you have said that you intend to expand it even further.

The ability to search through the whole list for an item can be maintained simply by making an index list which consists of monastic house name and county. And for houses whose county is unknown, create a special page to list them.

So, this is all doable. The question is when?

I see that you linked to WP:SIZERULE#No_need_for_haste. It suggests starting a discussion, and then " If the discussion makes no progress consider adding one of the split tags in order to get feedback from other editors".

That split tag was added 6 months ago, on 8 November 2013. Six months of discussion is no haste by any standards, esp given that AFAICS, you have been the only editor to oppose a split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent to my work on the page yesterday it is now a mere 12,354 bytes, a little over half the size of the England list - demonstrating that the size is irrelevant. It is now a question of whether there should be a single page for Ireland as there is for England, and if not then what is the benefit of either deleting it, or reducing it to a mere "list of lists" - as had happened with the England list at one point. JohnArmagh (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

JohnArmagh, it seems that your edits yesterday split it into a series of sub-lists, which are transcluded into the all-Ireland list. That is one of the options which I proposed above, yet you were arguing against it even as you were implementing it. That's not a very collaborative approach :(

As to size, the what matters per WP:SIZERULE is the size of the readable prose, and not the wiki markup size. The 12,354 bytes you claim above is the size of the wiki markup ... but the readable prose amounts to 237,210 bytes.

That is still too big, and will become even more so as your great work adds more data.

For now, I won't press for deletion of the all-Ireland list, but it really is at the size where it should be either deleted or reduced to a list of lists.

In the meantime, the individual pages need navigation tools: categories, navboxes, introductory text, etc. I will start adding those today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So arbitrary [non]-standards are to be applied in Wikipedia? England can have a single page even though it is far larger - but Ireland cannot? Why insist on sacrificing the benefits (which I have previously gone into) of a single list merely for the sake of 12kb? If a person wants to focus on a single county, it is now available to them - just as it is in the case of England. A list of lists would just be ridiculous - you might just as well put a list of counties for every article which has subdivisions of counties - send out the message "don't bother looking at anything at country level - instead you only have to search through 32 separate county lists - but, hey, we've given you a list of lists you can go through one by one just in case you miss one out." It really makes no sense whatsoever. I'm beginning to think I am wasting my time and effort here. JohnArmagh (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

JohnArmagh, please don't try claiming that you are a victim of some sort of persecution. So far as I can see, every editor who has commented on these lists has congratulated you on your work. I am sorry if I haven't done so clearly enough, so lemme say here that you have done a fantastic job of scholarship and writing by creating these lists.

The only disagreement with you has been over the organisation of the great content you have created, where there are some technical considerations. That's not arbitrary and it's not anti-John; we have both read the relevant guideline.

I know you don't like the idea of a list of lists, but due to the technical limitations, it may be what's needed. Some things are just too big to fit into one list, which is one of the reasons why wikipedia has over 400 lists of lists.

If you want readers to be able to search a single page, there is a simple solution. As I noted above: The ability to search through the whole list for an item can be maintained simply by making an index list which consists of monastic house name and county.

If you aren't sure how to make the index, I can do it fairly easily. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never even attempted to make any such claim - that is not the way I operate. On the contrary, I am far more concerned with the diminution of the encyclopaedic value of this topic. I don't seek affirmation or adulation - though it is gratefully, though modestly appreciated.

I have amply shown that there is not a technical consideration involved - if it works with England (and no-one seems to have a beef about that) then it works with Ireland.

What is the point of an "index list" when the whole detail can be seen in one place (as it is for England)? I for one would find it extremely tedious to have to go into each county individually for the details when I all I should need to do is look at a single, country list. If Archdall and Cobbett and Gwynn and Hadcock managed to have the whole country represented without separate volumes per county then there is no reason why a searchable, navigable hypertext page can't. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

John, if you didn't mean "I'm beginning to think I am wasting my time and effort here", then it would have been better not to write it.

My the point is simply that if a page is too long, it causes technical problems, and that this is noted in the guidelines. Other pages may also be too long, but the fact that other pages also have the same problem is no justification for keeping this one at an excessive length.

Anyway, you seem completely unwilling to accept the point made in WP:SIZERULE that overly long pages do cause problems, so I guess we'll have to go to an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You keep going on about technical problems - but there are none apparent. If some people wish to see just the counties, then they already have that. If some want to have the whole list on one page then why can they not have that? - especially given it is not a repetition of data but a different presentation of the same data. JohnArmagh (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

John, Wikipedia pages are read on many devices other than your browser on your PC. The fact that you can read the pages without problem of your equipment is not evidence that there is no problem. For someone on a slow connection (e.g. dialup, or mobile), page size is a very big problem. This is explained at WP:LENGTH#Technical_issues.

In common with other many other publications in different media, Wikipedia has size limits. Penguin doesn't publish paperback books 12 inches thick, and Wikipedia tries to keep its pages at a size which work across a wide range of devices. Don't assume that all our readership has new first-world equipment.

So it looks like it's RFC time.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It really beggars belief what the issue is here. It is quite simple: if you don't want to use the Ireland list, or it causes you problems, don't use it - the county lists are available. If, on the other hand, you'd prefer to see a full list, it is there. To delete the list, or reduce it to a list of lists, would be a near-Orwellian approach - "you'll see the information as we want you to see it, not as you'd like to have the option of seeing it, and if you don't like it, tough." I have made the options available. You want to reduce the options. JohnArmagh (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

John, I don't want to reduce the options. But guidelines are clear about the importance of size limits and the technical reasons for them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines are just that: "guide" not "mandate". Do what you wish. The page will still be available as one of my sub-pages. It seems that is the only way sense will prevail. JohnArmagh (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimapia

Why does this article use Wikimapia as a source? It is a user-generated wiki and therefore surely fails WP:RS ? - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I would like to propose a merge of this article with List of abbeys and priories in Northern Ireland. It makes more sense this has nothing to do with politics but the geographics, its simply a waste of dataspace having two seperate articles.

Please provide your answer along with an explanation. WinterIsComing (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Antrim Monastery

Changed listed founders from "Celtic monks" to "Gaelic monks". Because - unless there there Christians in pre-Christian times, and Antrim was originally in Gaul or Iberia - the term Celtic monks is an anachronism, and just plain wrong. Fergananim (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing "Celtic monks" to "Gaelic monks"

Changing nomenclature as above in all counties (only down to County Cork so far), for above reasons. Fergananim (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What a List!

It just needs a lot more photos - is anyone still updating this? Sarah777 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)