text:
Wales Rally GB

Wales Rally GB was the most recent iteration of the United Kingdom's premier international motor rally, which ran under various names since the first event held in 1932. It was consistently a round of the FIA World Rally Championship (WRC) calendar from the inaugural 1973 season until the rally's final running in 2019, and was also frequently included in the British Rally Championship.

The first rallies in the 1930s were simply known as Royal Automobile Club (RAC) Rallies and did not necessarily require leaving England. In 1951 the club organised the first annual RAC International Rally of Great Britain to tour the island, and until the 53rd event in 1997 this was still commonly known as the RAC Rally. In 1998, amidst a restructuring of the club and its commercial activities, the event lost its RAC identity and became known as the Rally of Great Britain or Rally GB, with title sponsorship from the Government of Wales since 2003.

The last planned Wales Rally GB was cancelled in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Welsh Government withdrew sponsorship support. Attempts were made to replace it with a Rally UK or Rally Northern Ireland, held entirely in Northern Ireland, however no such event has run.

1930s
The inaugural event was the 1932 Royal Automobile Club Rally, which was the first major rally of the modern era in Great Britain. Of the 367 crews entered, 341 competitors in unmodified cars started from nine different towns and cities (London, Bath, Norwich, Leamington, Buxton, Harrogate, Liverpool, Newcastle upon Tyne and Edinburgh.)

The Official Programme explained: "Different routes are followed from the nine starting points, each approximately 1000 mi long, but all finishing at Torquay. On every route there are four controls in addition to the starting and finishing controls, and these are open for periods varying from seven to four hours. Competitors may report at these controls at any time during the hours of opening. ... At the final control they must check in as near their fixed finishing time as possible, and any considerable deviation from this time results in loss of marks." Completing the routes held no other competitive element other than following them within the time schedules, which were deliberately made easy by the RAC so that everybody made it to Torquay. However, competitors performed tests at the finish in Torquay, involving slow running, acceleration and braking. There was no official winner declared, although Colonel A. H. Loughborough in a Lanchester 15/18 was recorded as having the fewest penalty points in the decisive tests at the finish. He completed the 100-yard slow driving test at an average speed of 0.66 mph, which was found to be less punishing under the scoring system than Donald Healey found by being fastest in the 100 yard acceleration test, completing it in 7.6 seconds.

The following year's RAC Rally followed a similar format, but with Hastings as the chosen finish. Over three hundred competitors entered, and this time Miss Kitty Brunell, driving an AC four-seater sports, was the driver with the fewest penalties. Over the next few years the rallies finished at various towns including Brighton and Blackpool. The rally was run annually until 1939, after which the outbreak of the Second World War forced its suspension.

1950s: Rallies of the Tests
The first post-war RAC rally was the RAC International Rally of Great Britain 1951 and included an 1800 mile itinerary with tests of speed, hill-climbing and regularity. Although the rally still started from multiple points, the cars were convened at Silverstone racing circuit for a high speed test, and from there followed a common itinerary around Scotland, Wales and England, finishing in Bournemouth. Cars had to be standard production models and sold in quantities greater than 50. Many motor manufacturers wanted to enter teams and pressed the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to approve the event to remove taboo surrounding the event being only for privateers.

The 1953 event was included as the third round of the inaugural European Touring Championship and included nine tests and part of the route was a secret. The tests included acceleration and braking held at Silverstone, night driving at Castle Combe, a night climb of Prescott Hill, a speed test at Goodwood and a new 'garaging' test at Llandrindod Wells which involved driving into a garage and parking, leaving the garage on foot then proceeding to return and reverse out of the garage, all against the clock. An official winner was declared for the first time, Ian Appleyard, driving a Jaguar XK120.

In 1954 and the years that followed, the rally received criticism for being "no more than a navigational treasure hunt" in comparison to the rallies being held in Europe at the time such as the Alpine or Liege-Rome-Liege. These demanded exceptional driving skill, endurance or had itineraries that required a higher speed over their entire route to avoid harsher penalties. No event was held in 1957 due to the Suez Crisis, but by 1958 no foreigner entered the rally at all. This didn't stop the award for best foreign driver being awarded, to Paddy Hopkirk of Northern Ireland.

For 1959, the rally was moved to November in the hope of making the rally more of a driving test in wintry weather, attempting to address concerns that the touring, regularity, road-rally wasn't necessary or worthy anymore.

1960s: Introduction of special stages
In 1960, organising secretary Jack Kemsley negotiated with the Forestry Commission to use a closed two-mile (3 km) gravel road named Monument Hill in Argyll, Scotland as a speed test. Times were still converted to points for the purposes of the rally competition and were based on an average speed of 40 mph. Swede Eric Carlsson won the rally and was the only driver not to accrue any penalty points at all. His co-driver Stuart Turner is quoted on the Monument Hill stage in the 1987 book RAC Rally by Maurice Hamilton, saying: "there is no doubt that was the point at which the RAC Rally shifted from a traditional "Find Your Way" on the public roads rally to the type of event we know today".

In the following year, 1961, rough gravel forestry roads all over the country were opened up to the drivers and the sealed surfaces such as Oulton Park made a tiny fraction of around 200 miles of special stages. With so many, the results of the rally were based more on what happened on these stages. This, with the introduction of special timing clocks and seeding of entries, secured the rally's future and appeal to international competitors, and the beginning of its reputation as one of the most gruelling and unpredictable fixtures on the calendar.

By 1965 there was over 400 miles across 57 special stages held on a mix of War Department roads, racing circuits and other private venues but the majority were in the forests. In 1966, the Forestry Commission increased the compensation requested for the use of its roads and the rally gained a sponsor in The Sun newspaper to help cover the costs, which were already being assisted by Lombank. From 1965, penalties accrued on the public road sections were being applied in units of time instead of points, with the total time measured on the special stages classifying the results of the rally.

The 1967 event was cancelled on the eve of the event due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, so competitors staged a mock rally at the Bagshot proving ground as consolation for the press and television (ATV had been persuaded to provide major coverage with in-car cameras for the first time).

1970s: Sponsorship and spectator special stages
Until 1970 there had been no title sponsorship, but in that year the rally plates on all cars carried advertising of the event's newspaper sponsor after the name (RAC International Rally of Great Britain sponsored by the Daily Mirror). In 1971, the event's full title itself changed to become known as the Daily Mirror RAC International Rally of Great Britain. This deal lasted for two further events before finance company Lombard North Central, then known as Lombank, took over title rights in 1974. The event became known as the Lombard RAC Rally, and Lombard's name became synonymous with the event for almost two decades. In 1972 Unipart were sponsoring all the 72 individual stages.

In 1971, ticketed 'spectator stages' were introduced and by 1975 had become an important part of the event's profile and source of revenue. These stages were usually short stints at stately homes or other public venues, such as Chatsworth House and Sutton Park. They were popular with spectators as they were closer to large population centres than the forests in Wales or Scotland, and organisers saw them help control the growing numbers of spectators crowding the forests.

The first day became devoted to these stages, in 1976 over 350 miles of road sections for just 14 miles of simple stages. They were often referred to as "Mickey Mouse stages" because of the lack of challenge they offered. Competing driver and columnist Chris Lord used the term and said he understood their purpose, but they were putting drivers off entering. Speaking of itineraries, Roger Clark said he'd rather have longer road sections than have "Mickey Mouse" stages to break them up. Nonetheless, they contributed to the results.

The seventies also saw change in the administration of organisation and authority of the sport. In 1975, the RAC's Competitions Committee was replaced by a Motor Sports Council, which was absorbed by the RAC Motor Sports Association in 1979. The legally independent association was created in December 1977 to organise motorsport events, one of which was the RAC Rally.

1980s
The 1985 event was the longest RAC Rally to date, with a total length of 3,465 km, with 79 hours of driving and 33 hours of rest over six days. Following the death of Henri Toivonen in 1986, limits on overall event length and stage length were put in place. Night stages were still permitted, however minimum break times prevented stages taking places through the night. The 1986 RAC Rally was the last European event for Group B vehicles. These highly tuned turbocharged cars were to be banned as they were deemed too powerful and dangerous, in light of the various accidents in which they were involved. In the end, the Peugeot 205 T16 Evo. 2s of Timo Salonen, Juha Kankkunen and Mikael Sundström took three of the top four places, with only Markku Alén's second position in the Lancia Delta S4 preventing a monopoly of the podium.

There were 83 finishers out of 150 starters in 1986, compared to year of worst attrition in 1981 when only 54 of the 151 starters reached the end. This was in stark contrast to the early years: in 1938, there were only 6 retirements from 237 starters.

1990s
During the 1990s, the length of the rally was gradually reduced, in line with other international rallies. 1989 was the last event to take place over 5 days, with 1995 the last event to take place over 4 days. The 1990 event was the first to allow crews to use pacenotes, as previous editions did not allow crews to perform reconnaissance runs through the route beforehand.

1996 would be the last time to-date that forest stages would be run outside of Wales, with the opening leg taking place in Kielder Forest and the Scottish Borders.

Rallies of Great Britain
In 1998, 'RAC' disappeared from both the name of the rally and its organising body (RAC MSA). Earlier that year the Club had begun a lengthy process of restructuring and altering its constitution in order to sell its commercial motoring services operation to Cendant. This sale was ultimately blocked by the state on monopoly concerns, but a sale was made early in 1999 to Lex Group.

It's possible that 'RAC' was dropped by request of the existing title sponsor of the rally Network Q, who offered similar commercial services to both Cendant and Lex Group. It's more likely, though not explicitly proven, that use of RAC branding was sold as part of the motoring services deal.

2000s: New formats
In 2000, the WRC's commercial rights holder International Sportsworld Communicators was sold to a consortium led by David Richards, who revolutionised the series into a TV and spectator friendly series whilst cutting costs. One of the biggest changes implemented was to condense the rallies into a more compact area rather than touring the country, reducing 'dead air' road sections that provided little value to anybody. This was quickly followed by a reduction of services, ultimately to just one central service park; and the double-running of stages in a 'cloverleaf' format was supposed to provide more value for the organisers, competitors, media production and spectators. Additionally, all WRC rallies followed a format of starting on a Thursday evening or Friday morning, to finishing on a Sunday afternoon.

The 2000 Rally GB could no longer start on a Sunday with a day of 'spectator stages' at the traditional stately homes or venues. Instead, tickets were needed for all special stages for the first time, and all stages were run on gravel 'in the forests', with the exception of a short head-to-head super-special held at a purpose-built spectator arena in Cardiff Docks. The rally started and ended in Cardiff and at no point left South or Mid-Wales, the first time in the event's history it had not covered roads in England or Scotland. 2001 saw just one central service area employed at Felindre, near Swansea, then in 2002 every special stage was run more than once.

After 10 years of sponsorship by Network Q, the Welsh Assembly became the title sponsor in 2003, helping to cement the rally's foothold in Wales. The 2005 rally included the first indoor super special stage at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. The rally was overshadowed by a death on the final day. On stage fifteen, Peugeot driver Markko Märtin crashed heavily into a tree, and while he was unharmed his co-driver Michael Park sustained fatal injuries. It was the first death in the WRC in over a decade. The final two stages were cancelled and Sébastien Loeb, who would have won the event and the championship, voluntarily incurred a two-minute time penalty in order not to win under such circumstances, leaving Petter Solberg to be declared the victor. A memorial for Park was unveiled in Märtin's homeland of Estonia and the damaged tree on the Margam Park stage of the rally where he died bears a plaque in memorial of him.

2010s
After being centred in South Wales since 2000, the 2011 edition of the rally started in Llandudno in North Wales and then heading south towards Cardiff during the rally. From 2013, the rally was centred in North Wales, with a service park located in Deeside, near Chester. In 2016 an agreement was reached between the MSA and Natural Resources Wales to continue to use Welsh forest stages for three years.

2020s
Rally GB was one of several World Championship rallies cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, marking the first time in the history of the series that a round in Britain had not been held. A proposed move to Northern Ireland was scrapped for 2021 after the prospective organisers failed to reach an agreement with local government to host the rally. As a result Rally GB was replaced by the Belgian Ypres Rally on the 2021 calendar. Despite further attempts by Motorsport UK to organise a rally, it did not appear on the 2022, 2023 or 2024 calendars.

Road Profile
British forest stages are known to feature relatively high average speeds, although for the most part not as fast as those of Scandinavia. The crests are also not as sharp and there are little-to-no natural jumps or yumps.

The stages throughout the country are known to alternate between more natural long, sweeping corners and others with manmade long straights and angular corners.

The roads are commonly smooth and all feature a hard base and minimal loose surface material. That being said Kielder stages are known to be rougher and more abrasive, as well as being heavily built-up in the centre and cambered towards the edges.

Road width varies throughout the country. Stages in North Wales and the Lake District are typically narrow, whilst those of South Wales and Kielder are much wider.

Weather
Typically run in November, rainfall is almost guaranteed and wet and muddy road conditions have become the defining characteristic of the rally throughout its history. Temperatures at this time of year rarely exceed double digits. Therefore the ideal road position is viewed to be one of the earlier cars through the stage, as the road becomes more polished or cut-up by every passing car.

Ice and snow are also not an uncommon occurrence for Britain at this time of year, and varying levels have affected the rally over the years. Editions such as 1971, 1988 and 1993 featured heavy snow conditions, particularly in the Northern-most sections of the route. The most recent edition to be affected by freezing conditions was 2008, when several stages on the opening day had to be either shortened or cancelled due to substantial ice. The issue of freezing is further complicated by the outlaw of studded tyres in British forests by the Forestry Commission, in order to prevent damage to the roads.

The unique weather conditions encountered on the rally have been viewed as a major put-off for several top drivers. Double world champion Walter Röhrl perhaps being the most high profile competitor to state his dislike for the event.

Title showdowns
For many years the rally has traditionally been the last round of the World Championship, and therefore has staged many famous down-to-the-wire showdowns.

In 1991 the world championship came down-to-the-wire in the British forests, with Lancia driver Juha Kankkunen edging out Toyota's Carlos Sainz after the Spaniard suffered engine issues and went off the road in Kielder Forest and damaged his car.

One year later and Sainz and Kankkunen returned to the RAC along with Frenchman Didier Auriol to fight for the 1992 title. Auriol's challenge would end with engine failure, and Kankkunen's hopes were also dashed when he went off and damaged his steering on the final day of the rally in southern Scotland. Sainz eventually won the rally and with it claimed his second world title.

In 1995, it was estimated that around 2 million fans lined the forests to witness Scotsman Colin McRae win his second consecutive RAC Rally. In the process he beat teammate Carlos Sainz to take his first and only world title in front of thousands of fans at Chester Racecourse.

McRae would have less fortune in future years; despite winning again in 1997, he was pipped to the title by Finn Tommi Mäkinen by just one point. The Scot would come up short again in 2001 when he crashed out of an early lead, gifting the championship to his English rival Richard Burns.

One of the most dramatic showdowns was 1998, when championship leader Tommi Mäkinen crashed out on one of the first day's spectator stages after his Mitsubishi hit a patch of oil, slid and tore a wheel off. This seemingly handed the title to Toyota's Carlos Sainz. However, in a cruel twist of fate Sainz's engine let go just 300 meters from the finish line of the final stage, meaning that Mäkinen claimed the championship title, with Luis Moya famously throwing his helmet through the car's rear window in frustration.

In 2003, a four-way title fight was narrowed down to just two when Burns was forced to withdraw from the event for medical reasons, which would tragically claim his life two years later, and Carlos Sainz crashed out. In the end, Norwegian Petter Solberg would win the rally ahead of Sébastien Loeb, and consequently beat the Frenchman to claim his only world rally title by just one point.

Nordic successes
Nordic drivers have enjoyed rich pickings in the RAC Rally through the years. Home drivers won the first six runnings of the race from 1953, when an outright winner was first declared. However, in 1960 Erik Carlsson of Sweden drove his Saab 96 to a hat-trick of victories in 1960–1962. Of the nine drivers to have won three or more rallies, five have been Swedes, Finns or Norwegians. The record for most victories is currently five, won by Sébastien Ogier (2013–2016, 2018), who surpassed Finnish Hannu Mikkola (1978–79, 1981–82) and Norwegian Petter Solberg (2002–2005). Though, last time a Nordic driver won Rally GB, was in 2012 (Jari-Matti Latvala).

Title sponsors
Until 1970 there had been no title sponsorship, but in that year the rally plates on all cars carried advertising of the event's newspaper sponsor after the name (RAC International Rally of Great Britain sponsored by the Daily Mirror). In 1971, the event's full title itself changed to become known as the Daily Mirror RAC International Rally of Great Britain. This deal lasted for two further events before finance company Lombard North Central, then known as Lombank, took over title rights in 1974. The event became known as the Lombard RAC Rally, and Lombard's name became synonymous with the event.

Following Lombard's withdrawal of sponsorship after nineteen years, the rally became known as the Network Q RAC Rally and later, the Network Q Rally of Great Britain. The rally moved its operational base to Cardiff in 2000 and competitive stage mileage was concentrated in Wales. With sponsorship from the Welsh Government, the event was known as the Wales Rally GB.

However, with such an extensive history covering the whole country, there were demands for the "glory days" of the old RAC Rally. In this spirit, two events have recently been established, and cover the same classic stages which are no longer part of the WRC itinerary. The RAC Revival Rally uses modern, but less powerful cars, while the Roger Albert Clark Rally is a historic event using only pre-1972 machinery, and named after the first home winner of the race as a World Championship event.

title: Wales Rally GB


text:
User:Xiaodai~enwiki

Gaming

Me

Education

Interests

Computing SAS R

Hi, I'm a science graduate with a major in mathematics. I like maths, although I'm not terribly good at it. My other interests include football (soccer) and video games. I particularly like Nintendo stuff. I think that's because I played Zelda: Ocarina of Time and fell in love with it. I have no doubt in my mind that OoT is still the best game ever made!

If you are interested in mathematics, you are invited to visit my wikibooks project.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Xiaodai~enwiki


text:
Talk:Lordship of Ireland

Flag
Where does the source of the flag come from? Was there one or is it used here as a convenience? --sony-youth talk 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a few searches but it appears that Lordship did not have a specific flag and seeing it was a possession of the Kingdom of England St Georges Flag is used by default. -- Barry   entretien  02:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found several sources that put the Three Crowns/flag of Munster as the flag of the Lordship of Ireland:
 * GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
 * Seven Bros
 * Celtia.info
 * Flags of the World
 * European Rugby Cup
 * Tripod website
 * There's more like these but granted no authoritative source.
 * While, of course it was a possession of England, this would not mean that it would share the same flag as they were politically seperate. --sony-youth talk 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Folks - clear up some confusion: the emblem of the Harp as shown would not be the same as the emblem employed by the English- they would have used a Harp with a Crown- the Irish would not of course use the Crown -so you havethe Harp sans Crown used by the President of the Republic. Coinage issued by the English and later by the Irish reflects this usage: the harp with crown by the English, and Irish issued coinage with the harp less the crown. The flag with the three crowns is of course the flag of the province of Munster, I do not know if the English ever used it for their Lordship of Ireland scenario, which of course which was honoured more in the breach rather the observance by the King's very nominal Irish subjects --86.43.99.51 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Sources for the Three Crowns/Munster flag are above. A more authoritative source mentioning the same (although as arms, not as a flag) is here. That source says that the crowned harp was introduced by Elizabeth I who "used a crowned harp as badge for Ireland in her second Great Seal of 1586" and that Azure a harp or was attributed to Ireland at least in 1280 (during the Lordship). Elizabeth was way after the Lordship of Ireland, and I don't think her Great Seal would affect the arms of Ireland anyway. --sony-youth talk 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have been the personal flag of Henry, marked for a younger (cadet) son in 1185. Two leopards on a red field. The harped flag (crownless or not) was not used before the 1300s. We may like to think in 2007 that it was "honoured in the breach", but in fact we don't know. Let's not make it up.Red Hurley 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I've come across more support for the Three Corwns representing the Lordship. (Personally, I would be suspect of a personal standard being the arms of a state. The Lordship wasn't a personal posession.) However, I'm not coming across anything that would put the harp as the arms for the Lordship. I cannot agree with Red that the harp didn't exist at this time - we have a source that puts it existing as the arms of the "Kings of Ireland" in 1280. Presumably it existed for at least some time before then, but who those "Kings of Ireland" are is the crunch question. If it the "Kings" referred to here were the rulers of the Lordship of Ireland then the harp was clearly the arms of the Lordship. However, I suspect not. Most sources put Henry VII's use of it as "new." So, these "kings" would, in my opinion, more likely be the the Gaelic kings.

 * I have however come across a reasonable explaination for why the Three Crowns stoped being used (and may hint at why they were use to being with). One source says "that the three crowns were replaced with the harp by Henry VIII, in case they were mistaken for the Papal tiara." So, just as he wanted to change the title from Lordship to Kingdom to fend off encroachment of the Pope, it appears he did the same with the symbols of the state.

 * (Incidentally, I have also come across something quite surprising which I am going to post to Talk:Kingdom of Ireland. ATQ Stewart says the following on Henry VIII in The Shape of Irish History: "Ireland was given a new green flag and the harp as its national symbol." Unfortuneately, he was not more about this "green flag." However, this got me thinking, was this the Green Flag of the kind associated with 1798? Certainly, the Saltaire (the flag currently appearing on the Kingdom of Ireland article) was in no way a flag of that Kingdom (it was coined only 20 years before the end of that state - and even then as a flag for the Order of St. Patrick NOT the kingdom. The Green Flag was used certainly as a naval jack during the KoI and was was hugely popular. It is attributed as the flag of Ireland by rolls in 1600's. In fact there are may references to it being the "flag of Ireland" during the period of the Kingdom, some putting English flag upper right corner. Before this period, blue appears to have been the "colour of Ireland" whereas afterwards green becomes so. For Henty VIII to change from the "flag of Munster" to the "flag of Leinster" also has some sense to it.) --sony-youth talk 09:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Finally an authorative source: "Our readers will observe that the arms which for many hundred years after the Conquest were borne by the whole of Ireland are now borne by the Province of Munster alone. In the time of Edward the IV. a Commission was held to enquire into the arms of Ireland, which Commission returned that 'yt ye three Crownes were ye armes,'" The Arms of Ireland, Rev. JFM French

 * See pages 19-21 for a full explaination.

 * However, it appears that the Harp had a strong association with Ireland such that "when Henry the VIII placed a harp instead of three crowns on the Irish shield he may have only called into requisition a well known Irish badge or crest, which would on that account be the more readily accepted ... [such that] the adoption of the harp as the badge of Ireland was a decided success, and has proved equally acceptable to all parties in the State." --sony-youth talk 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * A clearer description of the use of the harp:

 * Not so long ago it was generally believed that the inclusion of the harp in the arms and coinage of Ireland dated only from the reign of Henry VIII., but the fact is that the national instrument appears on coins issued by King John and Edward I.; and, in 1251, we read that "the new coinage was stamped in Dublin with the impression of the King's head in a triangular harp." A harp was originally the peculiar device of the arms of the Leinster province, and it was subsequently applied to the whole kingdom of Ireland-namely, in heraldic language, 'on a field vert, a harp or, stringed argent.'" - from Medieval Harps and Harpers --sony-youth talk 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The three crowns appeared ontop of each other, like in this coin; not like today's flag of Munster. It was changed to the harp under Henry VIII, supposedly because the three crowns look like a papal tiara. A rose ontop of a sun seems to feature on some coins too. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the coat of arms, it looks great. But—just a suggestion—maybe it should use the same shades of blue and gold as the KOI arms? ~Asarlaí 07:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

further cleanup
Added surrender & regrant. Removed Henry viii's excommunication (he wasn't / relationship veered from obedience to strong dislike). Henry burnt protestants at the stake; hated Luther and the Papacy.Red Hurley 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
I propose we merge Norman Ireland + Anglo and Gaelic Ireland 1367–1536 into this article. All three articles cover the exact same period and thus there's a lot of duplicated information. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 02:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Good idea. On the logic that 1+1+1 > 3. Mergeing the three would make for a better overall article IMHO. Norman Ireland could in time be spun out again into its own article. I don't get what the "Anglo-Gaelic Ireland" article is about. There is another article, Gaelic Ireland, that I think deserves to be left separate. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Merge, the first one certainly. It might be useful to have an overview article for this Gaelic kingdoms which never became part of the Lordship. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The dates given on the Gaelic Ireland article extend as far as the Battle of Kinsale (past the LOI even into the KOI). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're agreed then? Merging Norman Ireland + Lordship of Ireland shouldn't be hard, but I'm not sure what to do with the other one. ~Asarlaí 07:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge it with Gaelic Ireland is my 2¢? It hasn't been substantially changed since its first edits in 2005. I think it's purpose has since been overtaken by the Gaelic Ireland article, particularly the secton post-the Norman invasion. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Gaelic Ireland + Anglo and Gaelic Ireland 1367–1536 have been merged. ~Asarlaí 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lordship of Ireland, the official English title which the English called their claimed lands in Ireland by, sounds like late medieval Ireland - all of it - has just been thrown into a nice and neat English framework. That is ahistorical by any standards, even in the Pale, to say nothing of Tir Chónaill, Conamara or the vast majority of Ireland which was not under English rule. For an inclusive title, Late Medieval Ireland would be better. 86.44.17.226 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Please see Talk:History of Ireland where I have put forward an alternative proposal that "Norman Ireland" be moved to "History of Ireland 1169-1536". Scolaire (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Irish history series
I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland. --RA (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Title
Is Lord of Ireland a peerage title or feudal title ?

Siyac 11:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyac (talk • contribs)

Royal style Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in lead
I am removing the following sentence from the lead, as every part of it is inaccurate or plain wrong: It was never governed by the parliament, it was governed by the Lord Lieutenant and his deputy. The Pale only existed for part of its life, the House of Plantagenet for only a short part and the Angevin Empire for only a very short part. I can't say whether it was explicitly a fief of the Angevin Empire, but I don't think it was. Scolaire (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was governed from the Pale by the Parliament of Ireland and was a fief of the Angevin Empire, with the Lord of Ireland coming from the House of Plantagenet.

First sentence
The first sentence underwent a couple of changes recently. It currently says "The Lordship of Ireland...refers to Ireland under the rule of the king of England". I don't think that is correct. In any book I've looked at, Ireland is referred to simply as Ireland. "The Lordship of Ireland", strictly speaking, was only a title granted by Henry II to his son John, and retained by his successors. This is the sense in which it is used in most history books. In the wider sense, it refers to the English claim to lordship over Ireland, or to English institutions in Ireland. These varied widely over the course of 400 years between extensive and purely theoretical outside the Pale. The Kingdom of Ireland was different because it was entirely under English rule, and subject to the king, for the whole of its history. But the important point is that even contemporary English documents, or 19th century imperialist histories, don't use "The Lordship of Ireland" to refer to Ireland. A better phrasing is needed for the opening sentence. Scolaire (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Old Norse and other non-irish languages
In many websites and Wikipedia articles, they have said that the Norse in Ireland had become assimilated with the Irish, both linguistically and culturally. They certainly contributed to Irish culture and civilizationn, fouding the first urban institutions in Ireland but was Old Norse still spoken after 1171? Abrawak (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How widely was French, English and any other settler languages spoken? Abrawak (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Norse may still have been spoken in urban centres, such as Dublin and Waterford - but it died away in the century or so there after. English was the official language of the Lordship. Irish was spoken by the vast majority. French (or Old Norman) was the native language of the Norman invaders. The tendency of the settlers to become more Irish than the Irish themselves (and speak Irish) necessitated the passing of the Statutes of Kilkenny, which required the subjects of the king to speak English (not Irish). --Tóraí (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

About the 'Gaelic Ireland" label
In every single Wikipedia pages (except this one), the image sections of predecessing and sucessing polities would be left empty if it doesn't have an unanimous representation, or doesn't have a representation at all (like in this case). It is a universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia. It is forgivable for users putting disputed flag/coat of arms in the image section, but insisting to type words in that section while that polity doesn't have a flag at all…the name of that polity is rather short so it's possible to fit in those words for this case, but there are also plenty of articles that have long names, it's thus infeasible to use words as representations, therefore the section should be left blank under universal practiceIn every single Wikipedia pages (except this one), the image sections of predecessing and sucessing polities would be left empty if it doesn't have an unanimous representation, or doesn't have a representation at all (like in this case). It is a universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia. It is forgivable for users putting disputed flag/coat of arms in the image section, but insisting to type words in that section while that polity doesn't have a flag at all…the name of that polity is rather short so it's possible to fit in those words for this case, but there are also plenty of articles that have long names, it's thus infeasible to use words as representations, therefore the section should be left blank under universal practice. Pktlaurence (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't have it as you left it, which is Gaelic Ireland linked through a blanked out box. That just looks ridiculous. I agree the words aren't ideal, but it's better than that until a symbol can be found: an illustration from the Book of Kells perhaps? Or may be it should be completely blank with no wikilink. DeCausa (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (copied from my talk page) Gaelic Ireland isn't a polity, it's a period of Irish history. Personal, I would rather only have polities in the successors/predecessors. Anyway, I disagree with the "universal common practice", words are better then no representation at all. Not sure why they wouldn't fit. Rob984 (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to DeCausa. Now we can take away the wikilink then. Pktlaurence (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland infoboxes handle a similar problem by showing a downward pointing arrow which takes you to a word list of the predecessor kingdoms later in the infobox. The problem with that for this article is that the Lordship of Ireland was quite an amorphous concept. It claimed to be a lordship of the whole island, but it only de facto replaced the Irish rulers in The Pale or at most the Irish rulers replaced by the Anglo-Norman lords, who then often didn't accept the Lordship of Ireland. Many independent Irish kingdoms continued after the creation of the Lordship eg the the last King of Thomond gave up his crown only with the creation of the Kingdom of Ireland. The Kingdom of Desmond outlived the lordship to the 1590s. It's not clear-cut which Irish kingdoms would be predecessors and which would not. DeCausa (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 * For that very reason it would not be suitable, in this infobox, to have a down-arrow pointing to an arbitrary list of kingdoms, some of which may not even have Wikipedia articles. Also, it is not true to say that we "can't have...Gaelic Ireland linked through a blanked out box." It doesn't look "ridiculous". I happen to have been involved in a quite fraught RfC concerning the infobox at Goryeo, but nobody in the discussion batted an eye at the blanked-out box pointing to Taebong. And Taebong, in turn, has blanked-out boxes for both the predecessor and the successor states. I don't know about "every single Wikipedia page" or "universal common practice since the birth of Wikipedia" (I wasn't there for that), but certainly there is precedent for using the blanked-out box, and I agree with Pktlaurence that a space that was intended for icons should not contain text instead. The blanked-out box is no less meaningful to the uninitiated than a harp on a blue background, and clicking on either brings you to the relevant article (or hovering over it gives you the title, if that's all you need). I favour restoring Pkt's edits on this and the Kingdom of Ireland article. Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For my part, I would oppose that option. It looks amateurish and as though there is a screen error. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 * "a space that was intended for icons should not contain text instead", why? The space fits the text fine. I'm not quite sure why it's bolded, but otherwise it looks fine to me. Only issue is consistency, however a blank box really doesn't seem much like a precedence, but rather a shortfall in the original design. Also, text is used at the bottom of the infobox when there is a larger number of predecessor. See Kingdom of England for example. Text isn't regarded as infeasible in that instance. Rob984 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for pointing out the fact Scholaire. In fact that blank boxes is a universal common practice that exists in ALL Wikipedia pages (you can find them even just by picking an arbitrary article, e.g. Kingdom of Axum) and NONE of them use words except for this two articles. If blank boxes make you guys feel uncomfortable, I can tell you that using words looks EVEN MORE RIDICULOUS. If you you guys think blank boxes are ridiculous, maybe you should try to read more other articles and get used to it. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa I think it's rather the opposite that blank-box-phobia is a symptom for amateurs LOL. As only amateurish wikipedians that reads few articles do not know that all articles (except the two) uses blank box. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, your not justifying it, just claiming: it's the "common practice" so it's better. DeCausa has already expressed that they think the blank box looks "amateurish and as though there is a screen error".
 * Also, your manner is pretty insulting. Please be civil.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Rob984 I thought I have already answered your question. (Copied from your talk page)…What matters is that the 'universal common practice' doesn't come without a reason. I can guarantee that the Lordship of Ireland (together with the Kingdom of Ireland) is the ONLY polity article that used words in the predecessing/sucessing section, and ALL THE OTHERS just leave it blank. Blank boxes existed in plenty of articles and for a very long period of time, and theIR existences are just NORMAL and FINE. The problem of using words is that many articles have long names and if you use your method you'll have to cram a train of words into that small space. You may argue that in the case of Gaelic Ireland, the name is short enough to be crammed in, but THE ACT OF CRAMMING ITSELF IS ALREADY WRONG IN PRINCIPLE. Besides, FORMAT and UNIFORMITY plays a CRUCIAL role in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just by 'looking and feeling fine'. Besides, I can tell you that it is definitely a precedence (if you don't trust me go for Goryeo and Kingdom of Axum). Please read every comments in talk pages carefully. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I thought I have already expressed contrarily that I think that the unfamiliarity of blank boxes is amateurish LOL. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected a mistake and sorry for the typo.Pktlaurence (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it fit? And how is it any more crammed then the flags? If there are more then 4 predecessors the text is shown regardless in a section at the bottom. It isn't "crammed" at Kingdom of England so why is it "crammed" here? Rob984 (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And it doesn't matter. If you're getting agitated then take a breather. Otherwise, assume good faith and be civil. Sorry if you feel like I'm patronising you but I'm not going to try to reason with you if you behave like that. Rob984 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if Pktlaurence could moderate his tone a bit, but that is not the issue. What we appear to have is, on one side, two people saying that the blanked-out box is used in other infoboxes on WP, with links to examples, and on the other, two people saying "it looks amateurish and as though there is a screen error", with no links to examples of where text is used in place of icons on other articles. To me, that looks like a policy-based argument being opposed by an emotional argument. Scolaire (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't cited any policy: "used in other infoboxes" isn't a policy (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS?). In fact, WP:MOS says "style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia." The more substantive point is that it shouldn't be linked to Gaelic Ireland whatever the visual representation. That's not a predecesor state/polity. Furthermore, Gaelic Ireland existed before and after (even thrived after) the establishment of the Lordship. The least ahistorical solution is for their to be no predecessor. DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. To be more precise it would be a 'rational' argument against an emotional argument. Despite being emotional or rational, the reason of some Wikipedians are unused to blank boxes is because that they read to few article, which are the ones being truly amateurish LOL. Back to the topic, the reason it doesn't fit is stated in my previous comments: (…The problem of using words is that many articles have long names and if you use your method you'll have to cram a train of words into that small space. You may argue that in the case of Gaelic Ireland, the name is short enough to be crammed in, but THE ACT OF CRAMMING ITSELF IS ALREADY WRONG IN PRINCIPLE. Besides, FORMAT and UNIFORMITY plays a CRUCIAL role in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just by 'looking and feeling fine'.) The PRINCIPLE is that many articles have long names and using words will be infeasible. Even in the case of Gaelic Ireland that using words is feasible, looks fine, feels fine, … or whatever, it is still a fluke (that the name is short enough for cramming) and cramming is still AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE. To be simple (with you), the principle is against word-cramming (and using blank boxes instead), and all the other articles are following, so should this two. At last, responding to your accusations that I'm agitated, who started the name-calling of 'amateurish'? Now who's in need for a breather and some 'patronising', eh? Pktlaurence (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa Well I partially agree with you. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is valid only when an individual (sometimes atypical) example is used as a stock of argument, but in this case my argument is based on a typical style that is used on almost all of the articles of this type in Wikipedia. However, I agree to your point and solution and your statement about the nature of Gaelic Ireland. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've haven't called anyone names I don't think? Where did I call you 'amateurish'?
 * You completely ignored my comment. I still don't see how it's cramped here or would be cramped anywhere else. It's not cramped at Kingdom of England where five predecessors are represented by text.
 * I think we all agree that Gaelic Ireland should be removed as a predecessor here, but the issue still remains at Kingdom of Ireland. That entity did end Gaelic political and social order in Ireland.
 * Rob984 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody except you has called anyone 'amateurish'. You seem to have misinterpreted DeCausa's comment. Rob984 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a discussion for this article, but the establishment of the Kingdom of Ireland didn't end the Gaelic political social order. That changed very little. It was ended 50 years later in the Elizabethan Conquest (which, in WP has the non-COMMONNAME of Tudor conquest of Ireland and wrapped up with the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Pktlaurance, Wikipedia is absolutely stuffed full of complete trash. What's done in other articles is never a good argument for me. Kingdom of Aksum is a case in point. DeCausa (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So (and granted I didn't cite policy, but I at least showed precedent), does anybody know of other articles that use text rather than icons (including empty boxes) in their infoboxes? Also, I think it's a bit premature to say there's a consensus for removing Gaelic Ireland from the field altogether. That should be the subject of a separate thread, and there should be notice of that new thread at the WikiProject Ireland talk page to generate enough input to get a genuine consensus. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the discussions moved on from that. Three of us here seem to agree that deleting Gaelic Ireland altogether is more appropriate. DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Rob984 Sorry for forgetting your point. By responding to that, I will have to say in all the Wikipedia articles, when there are more than three predecessing/sucessing polities, a space will appear in the bottom of the infobox, which is much larger than the original space and therefore is big enough for words. You'd be quite …em… amateurish if you haven't noticed that. Besides, I don't think I've got anything wrong about DeCausa calling me 'amateurish', and the fact that you have quoted from it. Pktlaurence (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa Casually accusing other articles as 'trash' seems quite…em…'amateurish' to me. Still, I agree to you if your point about that Gaelic Ireland didn't end at the establishment of the Kingdom of Ireland is true, and I'm for removing the Gaelic Ireland link for once and for all. Pktlaurence (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now that our divergences still exists, but at least up to this moment most of us agreed that the Gaelic Ireland label is to be completely removed as a predecessor. Let's do this. Pktlaurence (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"three of us seeming to agree" does not make a consensus. I oppose its removal, therefore there is no consensus. Either start a proper discussion, and notify other potentially interested parties so that a proper consensus can be established, or leave it alone. no, let's not do this just yet. Scolaire (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it curious that somebody who is not even registered is such an expert on wiki norms and policies (apart from WP:civil)? Scolaire is correct - no consensus exists to remove "Gaelic Ireland". The Kingdom of England lists several predecessor states, some of which only have text and no emblem. That's precedent enough for me for the use of text. However, to fully replicate it would involve the appending of dozens of states in the case of Gaelic Ireland. This does not seem practical to me. I am therefore leaning towards a solution involving no emblem and just a link to Gaelic Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear why you feel the need to adopt that tone. Where did I say there was a consensus? And what's a "proper discussion". And "notify" what interested parties? And why? Most of us participating in this thread so far have put forward the view that "Gaelic Ireland" is inappropriate as a "predecessor". That's what I mean by the discussion hasd moved on. Anyone who wishes to can participate in this thread to voice their opinion, there is no need to open a "proper discussion" (whatever that means) nor is there any need to notify anyone. Obviously there's nothing stopping you doing that if you wish to (abiding by WP:CANVASS of course). This is business as usual run-of-the-mill stuff. (Btw, the mere fact that you object doesn't mean that there can't be a WP:CONSENSUS for it). DeCausa (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * One of us has misunderstood the other. I said, "I think it's a bit premature to say there's a consensus for removing Gaelic Ireland from the field altogether. That should be the subject of a separate thread, and there should be notice of that new thread at the WikiProject Ireland talk page to generate enough input to get a genuine consensus." You replied, "I think the discussions moved on from that. Three of us here seem to agree that deleting Gaelic Ireland altogether is more appropriate." I took that to mean, "The matter is decided; three of us have agreed so it's going." And, sure enough, after you posting that, Pktlaurence said "let's do it", and did it. Did I misunderstand you? If so, what on earth did "the discussion's moved on" mean? If I have just made a statement of opinion then that is where the discussion is – it has not moved on. And yes, the fact that I object does mean there is not a consensus. Three editors against one is a majority but not a consensus. To answer your other questions, a wider discussion is needed because a lot of editors have built this article up over a number of years, and changing something of long standing just because three editors who happen to be looking at it at the same time agree to change it is not, to my mind, a collegiate way of editing. Posting notice of the discussion on relevant forums is a way to improve the chance that some of those interested editors will see it, and offer an opinion. Scolaire (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors have built up a lot of articles over a number of years. There's nothing special or different about that, and it doesn't provide a reason why 3 editors can't agree to change an article in those circumstances. No doubt, if there are objections by other editors not currently participating it will get reverted. 3 editors making a change doesn't mean what was there before is lost forever. There's absolutely no need to post on "relevant forums", and absolutely no problem if that is done. This is basic stuff that goes on day in day out across WP and your over-sensitivity is very puzzling. As far as me saying the discussion has moved on is concerned, I was referring to the first part of your post. DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! That explains it. As I said, I thought it was referring to my belief that the thing shouldn't be deleted without further discussion, and as such it seemed quite dismissive. That's why I was "sensitive" about it. Anyway, we now seem to have three editors who believe that Gaelic Ireland should be retained, and that it should be represented by an empty box, so the discussion deems to have come full circle. Scolaire (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Ta da! Guys, I guess I've come up with a new solution by using the link of History of Ireland (800–1169), which I think is more historically accurate and can fulfill all of our requirements. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the argument is that we need a predecessor. Rather that the Lordship of Ireland replaced "Gaelic political and social order" in the area that it occupied, hence succeeding it. Gaelic Ireland isn't a polity, but it is still about a period of "political order". History of Ireland (800–1169) is a about a "period in the history of Ireland". Therefore I don't see how that is a appropriate at all. I'm impartial to whether Gaelic Ireland is shown, but definitely opposed to History of Ireland (800–1169). Rob984 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK that would be fine. Now let's get back to the topic. I agree to points of Laurel Lodged. And now, besides me, scholaire and Laurel, who's in for 'the solution involving no emblem and just a link to Gaelic Ireland'? Pktlaurence (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to see the problem with text, other than that it's uncommon: Rob984 (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 * For example, what looks better at Kingdom of Northumbria: this, this, or this? In my opinion, the former two clearly look better, and not at all "cramped". Also, as in the second example, we can force the overflow box at the bottom to display with "|p5 = &#8203;", so that's another option. Rob984 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Laurel Lodged: Sorry for missing your comments. I agree to your point that'We now seem to have three editors who believe that Gaelic Ireland should be retained, and that it should be represented by an empty box, so the discussion deems to have come full circle.' I think that's the end of the discussion. That's great. Pktlaurence (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And two editors believe that should Gaelic Ireland be retained, it should be represented by text. I'm not sure how you have determined consensus for those edits. Rob984 (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Btw, the mere fact that you object doesn't mean that there can't be a WP:CONSENSUS for it.' 'A lot of editors have built up a lot of articles over a number of years. There's nothing special or different about that, and it doesn't provide a reason why 3 editors can't agree to change an article in those circumstances. No doubt, if there are objections by other editors not currently participating it will get reverted. 3 editors making a change doesn't mean what was there before is lost forever. There's absolutely no need to post on "relevant forums", and absolutely no problem if that is done. This is basic stuff that goes on day in day out across WP.' 'Anyway, we now seem to have three editors who believe that Gaelic Ireland should be retained, and that it should be represented by an empty box, so the discussion deems to have come full circle.' I am fully agreed to these points. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.
 * If your unwilling to resolve the issue then the status quo will remain. If you continue to edit the article without consensus then you will be blocked from editing.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * PS, quoting DeCausa out of context is not clever, rather the complete opposite. Rob984 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

So, Rob984, the empty box is the default at Kingdom of Northumbria as well? I take it, then, that still nobody has found an example of the text-instead-of-image practice currently used here. Scolaire (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm not aware of any other instances text is used in the same practice currently used here. Other examples where there is no image available use the blank boxes if there's less than 5 prede(suc)cessors and text in the bottom box if there's more then 4 prede(suc)cessors (eg Wessex). Rob984 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Then we should do that here, and you should make your proposals on the template talk page. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FTR, the instructions at Template:Infobox former country say that the fields flag_p1, flag_p2, ... require the "name of image of flag for the state corresponding to p1, p2,..." (emphasis added). It goes on, "If a flag is not found or defined, the default 'flag unknown' image will be shown." This is the "blank box" image. There is no provision for the use of text instead of the "flag unknown" image. It is not reasonable for two editors (or any number of editors) to unilaterally decide to ignore the instructions on a couple of articles, when they are being adhered to elsewhere. The fact that it has been that way for some time is not relevant. Pktlaurence should not have been reverted when he rectified the error. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The documentation doesn't claim that the 'flag unknown' image should be shown if there is no flag, however it does explain the default behaviour. The template does however state "if you have anything other than a flag/banner image to use for a previous/following entity, fill in this field [image_p1/s1]". As for consistency, WP:INFOBOXUSE states "the meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox", it mentions nothing about presentation. There is no "consistency" guideline for the exact reason: it hinders progress. Wikipedia has very few [a limited number of] set conventions due to its constant evolving nature.
 * That it is an "error" is your opinion. Please don't encourage them to edit war again.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The image_p1,image_s1,... fields are specifically for images (e.g. coats of arms). Again, that is made crystal clear in the instructions. I repeat, there is no provision for the use of text instead an image. Talking of "set conventions" is a red herring. There is a de facto convention that the blank box is used when there is no image.
 * And "please don't encourage them to edit war again" is a cheeky way of saying, "don't change my version". It takes two to edit-war, and he didn't start it by reverting you. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The instructions are written for entities with flags or symbols, not periods of political order.
 * There are set conventions, it's called WP:Manual of Style. But so what if it's a "de facto convention"? There was no discussion where it was agreed that a blank box was the best way to represent successors/predecessors without a flag/symbol. You can really describe any practice that is widespread on Wikipedia as a "de facto convention". No reason we have to follow those practices.
 * Rob984 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A Wikpedia "de facto convention"...please! There are vast swathes of Wikpedia that are just an embarrassment. Let's not devolve to the lowest common denominator. If it's not in a policy it means nothing. And what Scolaire wants is not in a policy. How can anyone be proud of the infobox in Kingdom of Aksum for instance. Ultimately, what serves our readers most? Some words that are "unique" or an ugly and bizarre ghost box that a passing reading has to guess that they have to click on to find out why it's there. We're doing what we do to provide useful and usable information not to robotically follow some crass precedent that has never been recognised in policy anyway. Here's the test: what would a schoolkid in Indonesia find more useful when looking at this article: (a) the blank ghost box or (b) the words link "Gaelic Ireland"". Answers on a postcard. DeCausa (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't know why you two don't take your argument to the infobox talk page. If this infobox is such a shining example, why not share it with the rest of the community? Why not show them that the p1s and the s1s need to be changed at Goryeo, Taebong, Kingdom of Aksum, Kingdom of Northumbria and who knows how many others? "There are vast swathes of Wikpedia that are just an embarrassment. Let's not devolve to the lowest common denominator." In other words, everybody is out of step except our Johnny. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And by the way, if it's policy you want, WP:Consensus is a policy. If there is a wiki-wide consensus that the blank box is used in the former countries template when there is no image available, it is not for a small group of editors to decide they'll do it differently on one or two articles. If you disagree with the consensus, take it up on the template talk page. Scolaire (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Consensus? There was no discussion where it was agreed that a blank box was the best way to represent successors/predecessors without a flag/symbol. Does any practice that is widespread have consensus? It may have been considered to have consensus by silence, however this, by definition, is only consensus until it is disputed.
 * WP:CONSENSUS does however state:

 * "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."

 * The current position went 9 months without being contended, and hence the "wiki-wide consensus" by silence was revised "without dispute". Obviously, we currently have no consensus, however "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit
 * There is no guideline that implies widespread practices should be followed in articles. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY:

 * "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures."

 * Rob984 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Scolaire, consensus on the talk page of one article has no bearing on the consensus of the talk page of another article. The only way to affect multiple articles is to have that consensus reflected in a policy. DeCausa (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. An infobox is designed to be used in a particular way. The way it is to be used is set down on the template page. If there is no dissent on the template talk page, and the template is used according to the instructions across the project, then there is a wiki-wide consensus to use the infobox in the way it was intended, as set down in the instructions on the template page. There is no provision for the use of text instead of the "flag unknown" image. If you want it to be changed to allow for text – and apparently you believe that it should be done that way for all affected articles, you should make the case on the template talk page. The fact that the current position went nine months on this article without being contended ceased to be relevant as soon as somebody changed it to the accepted position. You now need to raise the question on the template talk page. Scolaire (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The template is not designed to show periods of time in the predecessor fields. If you want it to be changed to allow for periods of time "you should make the case on the template talk page". Rob984 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Gaelic Ireland was not a period of time, any more than Anglo-Saxon England was. I've amended the opening of the article accordingly. Scolaire (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 * It's not even an organised society, let alone a polity. Anglo-Saxon England is not a polity either. There's just terms referring to areas during periods of cultural, social, and political order. Regardless, a "predecessor" is a "thing that has been followed or replaced by another". I'm not sure you could say Gaelic Ireland was "followed or replaced" by the Lordship of Ireland. Also, the author states "There are no strict rules so please exercise caution and common sense when using this feature". I'd think avoiding using a blank box to represent a period prior to the entity is "common sense". Rob984 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Again, looking at Template:Infobox former country, it says that p1–p5 are the preceding entities, not polities. Of course Gaelic Ireland was an entity. It was a country filled with people who were Gaels. And of course it was the "thing that was followed or replaced" by the Lordship of Ireland. The Normans took the land that comprised Gaelic Ireland and called it the Lordship of Ireland. As for the other matter, "common sense" tells me that neither of us is ever going to convince the other, and it's not worth losing sleep over, so I'm going to let it be. Scolaire (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It also says "predecessors" and "successors", those have particular meanings in regards to states. Never disputed Gaelic Ireland was an entity. Thank you. Rob984 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Lordship of Ireland image
I feel compelled to point out that the present image in the article is not accurate. It implies that that the Lordship did not claim all Ireland, only certain areas. In fact it covered the entire island. As Katharine Simms has stated "just before and after AD 1300 marks the fullest geographical extent of English authority... In those years there was not a single Irish territory whose chief was not legally subject either to King Edward I, or to an Anglo-Irish earl or baron." (Katharine Simms, “Relations with the Irish”, pp. 66-86, in Law and Disorder in Thirteenth-Century Ireland: The Dublin Parliament of 1297, edited by James Lydon, Dublin, 1997). Perhaps it would be more accurate if the image noted that this was the maxim extent of Norman settlement? Though even there it is not accurate, implying settlement where there was none (north-western County Mayo, east and south-central Connacht, County Clare, the midlands, etc). Fergananim (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Presumably it merely indicates those territories that recognised the Lordship as its feudal superior, whereas the non pink areas didn't (whatever the Lordship's claim over the whole island was). I doubt that it even indicates areas over which the Lordship exercised effective control. DeCausa (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Agree with Fergananim. If the maps shows the extent of the effective control at some time then it needs a label that says that - along with a date and a source. --Tóraí (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a kaleidoscope between 1175 and 1542, as there were hundreds of realities of de facto control. But de jure the lordship happened to remain linked to the kings of England, who would have described themselves as Normans (and not English) in the 1100s and 1200s.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Warring over infobox
I've put a note at Template talk:Infobox former country about the problem with the blank flags in the infobox for previous states. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have tried a text fix for now. Murry1975 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lordship of Ireland


text:
Talk:Irish states since 1171

Pre-1171 Kingdoms
This article and the infobox of Irish-states seems to have a very Anglo-Centric view of Irish history. It makes no mention of the Irish High Kings or the old Irish kingdoms (Ulster, Connaught etc). I feel that this needs to be adressed but am not even sure where to start it.GiollaUidir 16:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Older Discussion
The situation prior to 1171 was not quite as loose as has been suggested. Ireland prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169 was hardly less unitary than the typical European proto-state of the time and is probably best described as a national kingdom lacking a settled monarchy.

The most recent changes were inaccurate in a couple of respects.

 * A declaration of independence may indeed have been made in 1916 but it had no validity. Those declaring it had no legal authority or right to make such a declaration. However Dail Eireann, as the assembly of Ireland's political representatives, were legally and politically entitled to make such a declaration, and it did in January 1919. While some in the Dail argued that they were only ratifying the earlier declaration, the fact that they felt it necessary to do so shows the true status of the 1916 declaration. As a result, most historians, political scientists and politicians regard 1919 as the real date for the declaration of independence, and the text has been changed back to reflect that.

 * Article 4 of the Bunreacht, through rather strange wording, gives priority to the name 'Eire' over 'Ireland'. This is reflected in everything from the banner heading over Acts of the Oireachtas to coinage. In addition the confusion over the two territories mentioned in the old Articles 2 and 3 meant that Eire was sometimes used as the new name for the old Saorstat (26 counties) with Ireland used interchangably for 26 or 32. As the english language version of Article 4 starts off using Eire, that format is used here too. In fact Eire is not used internationally except in rare circumstances. FearÉIREANN 10:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I accept the changes you made. In fact, I had realised my mistake on 1916/19 seconds after I changed it and thought I had changed it back myself. On Éire, my point was that it is used by many British commentators to distinguish from Northern Ireland, although Southern Ireland has become more common. I think 'often referred to' should serve as a compromise instead of 'more commonly referred to', as I think Ireland is the more usual description raher than Republic of Ireland.

The 1922 Consitution refers throughout to Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann), so I have changed the page to reflect that.

I think the two paragraphs I added at the end are useful to clarify the precise constitutional position, but if you have a better wording that would be welcome. User:Henry Williams 15:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Free Derry
Shouldn't Free Derry be added to the list of "See also" at the bottom of the template on this article? ie Confederate Ireland | Republic of Connaught | Éire | Northern Ireland | Republic of Munster

Free Derry was a de facto independent state like the Republic of Connacht, etc. It lasted around a year, so maybe it should be added? Republoic of Wexford as well?

Any opinions?

 * Weak Yes.GiollaUidir 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Prob best to raise the issue on the talk page of the template? Djegan 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Analogous pages for other countries?
This page is ballin', and it's a crying shame there doesn't seem to be anything else like it for the other 200 some nation states. 130.85.224.28 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Munster Republic
I don't think the so-called Munster Republic should be included in the timeline. As the article explains, it was simply a term used for the territory largely controlled by the Anti-Treaty IRA (for a very brief period). Unlike the Republic of Connaught or Free Derry, it was never formally declared as a state. Opinions? ~Asarlaí 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Irish Constitutional Period and the Irish Free State
Shouldn't the "Irish Constitutional" period should begin with the adoption of the Irish Constitution? The Irish Free State was a dominion under the sovereignty of the crown. Why would that not still be British Constitutional period? Even if you place the Irish Republic in the Irish Constitutional period, the IFS was a reversion to / acceptance of continuing British constitutionalism until the king was replaced as sovereign by the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.124.88.45 (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Irish states since 1171


text:
Sean McMullen

Sean Christopher McMullen (born 21 December 1948 in Sale, Victoria) is an Australian science fiction and fantasy author.

Biography
McMullen is one of Australia's leading science-fiction and fantasy authors and has written over 70 stories and 17 books. In 2011, his novelette "Eight Miles" was the runner-up in the Hugo Awards. He has won the Analog Reader's Award twice, for "Ninety Thousand Horses" in 2013 and "Tower of Wings" in 2002.

His first novel was originally published in Australia as two separate books, Voices in the Light (1994) and Mirrorsun Rising (1995). His first internationally published novel was The Centurion's Empire (1998), which featured a time machine built during the Roman Empire. After this book's success, his first two novels were rewritten and combined for a publication in the US as Souls in the Great Machine (1999), which, in turn, became the first volume of the Greatwinter trilogy, a unique mix of the generally anti-genres steampunk and cyberpunk. This was followed by the Moonworlds series, which saw McMullen blend science and romance in a fantasy setting. His most recent series is the Century War series for young adult readers, set in Melbourne in 1901.

McMullen's non-fiction work includes Strange Constellations: A History of Australian Science Fiction, a history of Australian science fiction jointly written with Van Ikin and Russell Blackford. He also co-wrote the first histories of Australian fantasy and horror with Steven Paulsen.

McMullen has a degree in physics and history from Melbourne University (1974), a postgraduate degree in library and information science, and a PhD in Medieval Literature.

He was a professional musician in the 1970s, concentrating on singing and guitar playing.

McMullen has recently retired from a career in scientific computing to concentrate on his literary work.

He is a fourth dan black belt in karate, teaching at the Melbourne University Karate club.

He is the father of C. S. McMullen, an Australian speculative fiction author.

Novels
Warlock's Child series (with Paul Collins)
 * Voices in the Light (1994)
 * Mirrorsun Rising (1995)
 * The Centurion's Empire (1998)
 * The Ancient Hero (2004, part of the Quentaris Chronicles)
 * Before the Storm (2007)
 * Changing Yesterday (2011)
 * Dreams of the Technarion (2017)
 * Generation Nemesis (2022)
 * This Spells Trouble (2023, with Paul Collins)
 * Greatwinter series
 * Souls in the Great Machine (1999, a rewritten version of Voices in the Light and Mirrorsun Rising)
 * The Miocene Arrow (2000)
 * Eyes of the Calculor (2001)
 * The Moonworlds Saga series
 * Voyage of the Shadowmoon (2002)
 * Glass Dragons (2004)
 * Voidfarer (2006)
 * The Time Engine (2008)

 * The Burning Sea (2015)
 * Dragonfall Mountain (2015)
 * The Iron Claw (2015)
 * Trial by Dragons (2015)
 * Voyage to Morticas (2015)
 * The Guardians (2015)

Short fiction

 * Collections
 * Call to the Edge (1992)
 * Walking to the Moon (2007)
 * Ghosts of Engines Past (2013)
 * Colours of the Soul (2013)
 * Stories

 * "At the Focus" (1986 with Paul Collins) in Eidolon (Australian magazine) Spring 1990 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * "The Deciad" (1986) in Call to the Edge
 * "The Colors of the Masters" (1988) in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction March 1988 (ed. Edward L. Ferman)
 * "While the Gate Is Open" (1990) in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction February 1990 (ed. Edward L. Ferman)
 * "Alone in His Chariot" (1991) in Eidolon Summer 1991 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * "The Dominant Style" (1991) in Aurealis No. 4 (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * "The Eyes of the Green Lancer" (1992) in Call to the Edge
 * "Destroyer of Illusions" (1992) in Call to the Edge
 * "The Porphyric Plague" (1992) in Intimate Armageddons (ed. Bill Congreve)
 * "Pax Romana" (1992) in Call to the Edge
 * "The Devils of Langenhagen" (1992) in Call to the Edge
 * "An Empty Wheelhouse" (1992) in Analog Science Fiction and Fact January 1992 (ed. Stanley Schmidt)
 * "Souls in the Great Machine" (1992) in Universe 2 (ed. Karen Haber, Robert Silverberg)
 * "The Glasken Chronicles" (1992) in Eidolon Autumn 1992 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * "Pacing the Nightmare" (1992) in Interzone May 1992 (ed. David Pringle, Lee Montgomerie)
 * "A Greater Vision" (1992) in Analog Science Fiction and Fact October 1992 (ed. Stanley Schmidt)
 * "The Way to Greece" (1993) in Eidolon Winter 1993 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne, Jonathan Strahan)
 * "Charon's Anchor" (1993) in Aurealis No. 12 (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * "The Miocene Arrow" (1994) in Alien Shores: An Anthology of Australian Science Fiction (ed. Peter McNamara, Margaret Winch)
 * "The Blondefire Genome" (1994) in The Lottery: Nine Science Fiction Stories (ed. Lucy Sussex)
 * "A Ring of Green Fire" (1994) in Interzone November 1994 (ed. David Pringle, Lee Montgomerie)
 * "Lucky Jonglar" (1996) in ''Dream Weavers (ed. Paul Collins)
 * "The Weakest Link" (1996, written as Roger Wilcox) in Dream Weavers (ed. Paul Collins)
 * "Slow Famine" (1996) in Interzone May 1996 (ed. David Pringle)
 * "Queen of Soulmates" (1998) in Dreaming Down-Under (ed. Jack Dann, Janeen Webb)
 * "Chronicler" (1998) in Fantastic Worlds (ed. Paul Collins)
 * "Rule of the People" (1998) in Aurealis #20/21, (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * "Souls in the Great machine" (1999) an excerpt in The Centurion's Empire
 * "New Words of Power" (1999) in Interzone August 1999 (ed. David Pringle)
 * "Colours of the Soul" (2000) in Interzone February 2000 (ed. David Pringle)
 * "Unthinkable" (2000) in Analog Science Fiction and Fact June 2000 (ed. Stanley Schmidt)
 * "Mask of Terminus" (2000) in Analog Science Fiction and Fact October 2000 (ed. Stanley Schmidt)
 * "Voice of Steel" (2001)
 * "Tower of Wings" (2001) in Analog Science Fiction and Fact December 2001 (ed. Stanley Schmidt)
 * "SVYAGATOR" (2002) in Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine No. 3 (ed. Ian Nichols)
 * "Walk to the Full Moon" (2002) in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction December 2002 (ed. Gordon Van Gelder)
 * "The Cascade" (2004) in Agog! Smashing Stories (ed. Cat Sparks)
 * "The Empire of the Willing" (2005) in Future Washington (ed. Ernest Lilley)
 * "The Engines of Arcadia" (2006) in Futureshocks (ed. Lou Anders)
 * "The Twilight Year" (2008) in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction January 2008 (ed. Gordon Van Gelder)
 * "The Constant Past" (2008) in Dreaming Again (ed. Jack Dann)
 * "The Spiral Briar" (2009) in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction April–May 2009 (ed. Gordon Van Gelder)
 * "The Art of the Dragon" (2009) in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction August–September 2009 (ed. Gordon Van Gelder)
 * "Mother of Champions" (2009) in "Interzone" No. 222 (ed. Andy Cox)
 * "Eight Miles" in "Analog" September 2010 (ed. Stanley Schmidt)
 * "Enigma" in "Analog" Jan/Feb 2010 (ed. Stanley Schmidt)
 * "Spacebook" in "Anywhere But Earth" 2011 (ed. Keith Stevenson)
 * "Ninety Thousand Horses" in "Analog" Jan/Feb 2012 (ed. Stanley Schmidt)
 * "Electrica" in "The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction" March/April 2012 (ed. Gordon Van Gelder)
 * "Steamgothic" in "Interzone" July/August 2012 (ed. Andy Cox)
 * "Hard Cases" in Light Touch Paper, Stand Clear 2012 (ed. Edwina Harvey and Simon Petrie)
 * "The First Boat" in "Aurealis" March 2012 (ed. Michael Pryor)
 * "Running Invisible" in "Trust Me Too" 2012 (ed. Paul Collins)
 * "Culverelle" in "The Feathered Edge" 2012 (ed. Deborah J. Ross)
 * "Lost Faces" in "The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction" March/April 2013 (ed. Gordon Van Gelder)
 * "The Firewall and the Door" in "Analog" March 2013 (ed. Trevor Quachri)
 * "Acts of Chivaltry" in "Tales of Australia – Great Southern Land" 2013 (ed. Stephen C. Ormsby)
 * "Technarion" (2013) in "Interzone" Sept/Oct 2013 (ed. Andy Cox)

Non-fiction

 * Books
 * The MUP Encyclopaedia of Australian Science Fiction & Fantasy (1998, assistant editor with Paul Collins)
 * Strange Constellations: A History of Australian Science Fiction (1999 with Russell Blackford and Van Ikin)
 * Essays and articles
 * Beyond Our Shores (1990) in Eidolon Winter 1990
 * The High Brick Wall (1990) in Eidolon Spring 1990 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * Not in Print but Worth Millions (1991) in Eidolon Winter 1991 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * Book Review (1991) in Aurealis No. 5 (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * Going Commercial and Becoming Professional (1991) in Eidolon Spring 1991 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * Australian SF Art Turns 50 (1992) in Eidolon Summer 1992 (ed. Jonathan Strahan, Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * Far from Void: The History of Australian SF Magazines (1992) in Aurealis #7 (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * Skirting the Frontier (1992) in Eidolon Autumn 1992 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * Showcase or Leading Edge: Australian SF Anthologies 1968–1990 (1992) in Aurealis #9, (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * From Science Fantasy to Galileo (1992) in Eidolon Spring 1992 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne, Jonathan Strahan)
 * Australian Content: The State of Quarantine (1993) in Eidolon Summer 1993 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne, Jonathan Strahan)
 * Australian Content: Suffering for Someone Else's Art (1993) in Eidolon Autumn 1993 (ed. Jonathan Strahan, Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * Protection, Liberation and the Cold, Dangerous Universe: The Great Australian SF Renaissance (1993) in Aurealis #11, (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * No Science Fiction Please, We're Australian (1993) in Eidolon Winter 1993 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne, Jonathan Strahan)
 * The Quest for Australian Fantasy (1994, with Steven Paulsen) in Aurealis No. 13, (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * Australian Content: The Great Transition (1994) in Eidolon Winter 1994 (ed. Jonathan Strahan, Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * The Hunt for Australian Horror Fiction (1994, with Steven Paulsen) in Aurealis No. 14 (ed. Stephen Higgins, Dirk Strasser)
 * A History of Australian Horror (1995, with Bill Congreve and Steve Paulsen) in Bonescribes: Year's Best Australian Horror: 1995 (ed. Bill Congreve, Robert Hood)
 * SF in Australia (1995, with Terry Dowling) in Locus January 1995 (ed. Charles N. Brown)
 * Australian Content: Recognition Australian Style (1995) in Eidolon Summer 1995 (ed. Jeremy G. Byrne)
 * Australia: Australian Contemporary Fantasy (1997, with Steven Paulsen)
 * George Turner and the Nova Mob (1997) in Eidolon, Issue 25/26 Spring 1997 (ed. Jonathan Strahan, Jeremy G. Byrne, Richard Scriven)
 * The Road to 1996 (1998, with Terry Dowling) in Nebula Awards 32 (ed. Jack Dann)
 * The British Benchmark (1999) in Interzone August 1999 (ed. David Pringle)
 * Time Travel, Times Scapes, and Timescape (2000, with Russell Blackford, Alison Goodman, Damien Broderick, Aubrey Townsend, Gregory Benford) in The New York Review of Science Fiction August 2000, (ed. Kathryn Cramer, David G. Hartwell, Kevin J. Maroney)
 * 25 (Celebrating 25 Years of Interzone) (2007) in Interzone September–October 2007 (ed. Andrew Hedgecock, Jetse de Vries, Andy Cox)

Awards
Hugo Awards

2011 Runner-up, Best Novelette – "Eight Miles"

Ditmar Awards

1991 	Best Australian Short Fiction – While the Gate is Open

1992 	Best Short Fiction – Alone in His Chariot; William Atheling Jr. Award for Criticism – Going Commercial

1993 William Atheling Jr. Award for Criticism – Australian SF Art Turns 50

1996 	Best Australian Long Fiction – Mirrorsun Rising; William Atheling Jr Award for Criticism – The Hunt for Australian Horror Fiction (together with Steven Paulsen and Bill Congreve)

1998 	William Atheling Jr Award for Criticism – Fantasy in Australia (together with Steven Paulsen)

2000 	William Atheling Jr Award for Criticism – Strange Constellations (together with Van Ikin and Russell Blackford)

Aurealis Awards

1998 	Best Novel – The Centurion's Empire

2001 	Best Novel – The Miocene Arrow

2003 	Best Short Story – Walk to the Moon

Analog Reader's Award

2002 Best Novelette – Tower of Wings

2013 Best Novelette – Ninety Thousand Horses

Nova Fantastyka Reader's Award

2003 Best Foreign Story – Voice of Steel

title: Sean McMullen