User talk:CeltBrowne

Orphaned non-free image File:Seán Moylan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Seán Moylan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hasan Piker

Can you verify that I'm correctly assuming that you only meant to do this rather than [1]? --Hipal (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You're correct, sorry about that. It was a result of having 78 tabs open across two Firefox windows and getting mixed up about which tab I was in. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done the same thing. --Hipal (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Richie Ryan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Richie Ryan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TJ Maher 1979.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TJ Maher 1979.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dropkick Murphys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Kelly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Development proposals

Hi. Apologies in advance. Rant incoming. Not directed at you. But just at the universe in general :)

As noted, development proposals are the subject of marketeering and other types of promotion every day. Some of these press releases are picked up by relatively mainstream news sources. And include gushing quotes from the developers and promoters. While the project is under no obligation to republish all of them as if they were anything other than speculative kite-flying (and we have any number of guidelines against doing so), for some reason we sometimes seem to forget ourselves. And (without meaning to) republish a developer's promotional material or aspirational dreams - as if they were something other that.

In some cases, this results in standalone titles on proposed developments that ultimately never occur. Many almost laughably trying to cram in as many white elephant/unicorn proposals as possible into just a few lines of text. For example, in:

• 2008, a Heuston Gate title laughably declared that "Heuston Gate [..] is a skyscraper development moving into construction phase in the coming months. Heuston Gate contains at its heart a 32 storey tower which will be either Ireland's tallest or second tallest building depending on when the U2 Tower is completed".
• 2009, the Atlantic Quarter title claimed that this development (yards from what is now the Marina Market) almost certainly "will be complete by 2013 [..] rivalling Dublin's docklands area and acting as a counterweight to the International Financial Services Centre in Dublin and the Titanic Quarter in Belfast [..and served by a..] €80m swing bridge, which will open to allow boats use the river [..and..] will be the biggest in Europe. "
• 2010, the Tipperary Venue article made clearly insane claims about there being a "15,000-seater underground entertainment venue with a retractable roof" that absolutely "will" form part of this white elephant on which work almost certainly "will begin on the site in the spring of 2011".
• 2012, a Christchurch railway station article ridiculously claimed that a "Christchurch [..] station will be one of five new underground facilities serving the reconfigured DART (Underground) services. It will be located next to Christ Church Cathedral [..and..] also connect with [..] the proposed Luas Line F, to Lucan". And that all of this would happen by 2015. (As if trying to win a bet by deliberately cramming as many speculated/unrealised proposals into one paragraph. Like the author was shooting the Wikipedia moon...)

In other cases editors (for reasons I have never been able to fathom) can't stop themselves from adding equally laughable stuff into existing articles. Like how, as of:

• 2015, the Economy of Cork absolutely "will" be improved by the South Main Street (Beamish and Crawford site) events centre. Which will have a "total cost of [..] 150 million euro" (LMAO) and "will begin end of 2015" (ROFL) and how "BAM also plans to build a 360-degree viewing tower" (keel over dead from the gall of this hubris).
• 2008, the Stephen's Green luas stop article stated that it "will feature an underground [DART] stop" With no qualification or conditionality. And that there also "will be a deep bore [Metro] tunnel [by 2013]". Again no qualification. Will definitely have two underground platforms by 2013 and 2015.

While I'm sure you won't, I entreat any/all editors not to fall into this trap (the one that newspapers seem incapable of avoiding): Republishing developer pie-in-the-sky proposals as if it is nothing more than speculative kite-flying to gain investment or clicks or whatever.

Long-story-short: About the most we should ever state is something like: "In MONTH YEAR, the owners of XYZ proposed to undertake development ABC". Anything more than this is too much. And just creates a burden on the community to keep updating this speculation. Until all the dates and plans have changed beyond recognition. Or just fallen-away entirely. Please don't be one of the editors that creates this collective burden...

</endofrant>

(Apologies - It's not you - It's me :) ). Guliolopez (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gulio,

As you may know, I normally write about people or social/political organisations rather than locations/buildings. Typically with biographically pages, using text sources from national level newspaper is straight forward and not controversial. However, I could see from the edit history that this property development type of stuff is a bugbear for you. In future, I'll be more discerning as far as content of this type goes. In return though, just be careful with your tone in edit histories; avoid having your concern misconstrue as aggression by other users. Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Life Festival, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Giggs and La Fleur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Arms of towns

Hi. I notice that you've added "coats of arms" to the infoboxes of a number of Irish towns. Is there a particular rationale for this?

If these coats of arms are currently used to represent these towns (in particular circumstances), are there references to support this?

If these coats of arms were historically used to represent the towns or their councils (perhaps prior to the 2014 abolition of town/borough councils), is it clear from the infobox entries that that is the case? (IE: That, if they were only used historically and are no longer used currently, is this clear from the placement/captions/etc in the infobox?)

My main reason for asking is that, to my memory (which may be wrong of course), more than a few of those infoboxes previously contained those COA images. And they were removed over time. Mostly either because (a) the arms were no longer used in any official/common/real sense (while their prominent inclusion in the infobox implied otherwise). And (b) their inclusion couldn't be supported by references.

Anyway, if you have references or rationale for their inclusion, can you perhaps share? Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Guilio,

If you click on any of my recently uploaded Coat of Arms, and click "View on Commons", you'll see that references have been provided in the file description (they have a specific Coat of Arms template used on the Commons). References include sites such as Heraldry of the World Wiki and Source Blazon Wiki, but ultimately link back to Grants and Confirmations of Arms books hosted on the National Library of Ireland website and are issued by the Chief Herald of Ireland themselves, the issuer of the arms. That covers most arms issued post-Independence (1922 onwards).

Any derived from before 1922 come from reliable sources such as books published by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies such as The book of public arms.

So you can see that any arms I've uploaded to Wikipedia have been properly sourced, and those sources attached to the files themselves. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to elaborate:

If you click File:Skibbereen Coat of Arms.png and click View on Commmons, you'll see that 3 sources were provided in the file description, including an NLI link. If we go to the NLI link, and go to image 86, we see both the blazon and the motto right there. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. In the edit summary accompanying this revert you referred me to this commons image. Which in turn refers to this open wiki. Which in turn refers to this this grant of arms (image 14) which is dated to March 1953. And states that the arms were issued, by the then Chief Herald of Ireland, to Sligo Corporation in 1953.

Given, in particular, that Sligo Corporation no longer exists, is there any evidence or reference that the arms are used (in any actual or real way) to represent Sligo today?

Or, if the arms were only used between 1953 and 2014, is that clear from the infobox entry?

(Same goes for the Skibbereen COA. Which (per the NLI source you mention image 86) were seemingly given to Skibbereen Urban District Council by the then Chief Herald in November 1980. As Skibbereen Urban District Council was abolished in 2014, are we happy that the arms are still in use? By another entity? To represent the town? And that context/use is clear from the infobox entry?)

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Also. Mottos. What did you rely upon for the translation of the motto you gave on Commons? And then also added to the Wikipedia article?

I don't see an English translation in the NLI source or those two other wiki mirrors? Where did it come from?

(FWIW, my own school-level Latin would translate that motto as "what you seek is here". Rather than "what you request". But that's OR on my part. Did you also use OR? Is that a good idea?). Guliolopez (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Last night while I was rendering the Coat of Arms I know I had a source which gave that English translation, however I'm struggling now to find it again. Googling, I do see different translations offered. If the translation is wrong, I'm happy for it to be removed or altered. Typically, sources such as Heraldry of the World come with a translation of Latin or Irish language mottos and I normally go with what they have. Skibbereen is a bit of an outlier in that the sources don't provide one. If I'm adding mottos again, I'll add citations as well. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

So in Ireland, the short answer is that Coat of Arms that were issued by the Herald of Ireland to towns/a local government body continue to be used to represent the town after 2014.

The longer answer:

Previous to the 1950s, the only County Councils in Ireland that had Coat of Arms were pretty much the ones who had received Coat of Arms under British rule or had them from medieval times (such as Dublin, Cork, Wexford, Limerick). However, following the creation of the Genealogical Office (later Chief Herald of Ireland) in 1943,[2] the Herald began issuing new coat of arms to council who would pay for them. As most Councils had no "branding", paying for a Coat of Arms how they created a "brand"/graphic identity. So what started happening is that County Councils started paying for Coat of Arms and used that as their only/primary logo. Soon after, towns followed suite. If you go through NLI records, you'll see an explosion of new arms granted between the 1960s and 1980s.

While town councils were abolished in 2014, most towns whose local government body were granted arms continue to informally use them. For example, while there is no longer a "Castlebar town council", there is a "Castlebar Municipal District" which continues to use the same coat of arms. This 2021 Irish Examiner article discusses a fight between the GAA and the County Council over the Coat of Arms (incorrectly referred to in the article as a "crest". You know how property announcements are a bugbear for you? Reliable sources using incorrect terms for Heraldry would kinda be one for me) of Castlebar. This kind of thing demonstrates that the coat of arms issued in the 20th century continue to be seen as active symbols post-2014.

I understand the point you're raising post-2014, but 1) as I've just discussed they're still actively used as de facto arms and B) If you remove Coat of Arms that were technically for a local government body rather than the town itself per say, then you'd have to remove every single town Coat of Arms ever issued by the Genealogical Office/Chief Herald of Ireland and only keep ones issued in medieval times under British rule. And even then, one can strongly argue that arms issued under British rule were also for local government bodies rather than the towns themselves as well. So that would result in every single Irish town having to remove Coat of Arms.

I think the simplest, most reasonable thing to do is recognise that any coat of arms issued by the Chief Herald are considered de facto arms for the town, much in the same way arms issued to county councils are considered the de facto arms of the County. Adding "actually this is the arms of the town council" wouldn't work out, because we'd have to add "actually this is arms of the county council, not the county" to the county info boxes. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

To further elaborate:

It's common practice on Wikipedia to simply display the coat of arms of a local government body as the arms of the location. For example: The Coat of Arms displayed for Edinburgh on Wikipedia are technically the arms of Edinburgh City Council. You'd probably have to get into a major discussion with WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology about altering that practice. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. While I, of course, understand that many infoboxes include the coat of arms of the active local govt body (for that locality) in the "shield" param, I do not think that Edinburgh is a valid like-for-like example. As Edinburgh City Council still exists. While Skibbereen Urban District Council and Sligo Corporation and Greystones Town Council don't.

To cut to the chase, and even ignoring the potential hallucinations from ChatGPT in generating the images themselves, my main concerns are:

• Verifiability. Do we have references to confirm that the arms, issued to Skibbereen Urban District Council in 1980, are still used to represent Skibbereen in 2025? (I personally don't think that those open wikis and the primary sources should be used alone.)
• Clarity. If the arms are no longer used to represent Skibbereen (after the abolition of Skibbereen Urban District Council in 2014), is it clear from the infobox entry that this is the case?
• Weight. With consideration to related and semi-related guidelines, are we happy that the inclusion doesn't "give undue prominence to one field among many"? (Especially if technically representative of a former govt body - rather than town as a whole?)

In all honesty, if we don't have evidence of them still being used, I wonder if the infobox captions should clarify that the arms were issued to (former) bodies. Rather than (if we don't have evidence that they were) to the town/locale as a whole.

(FYI - In terms of "prioritising British-issued arms over Irish-issued arms", I don't really want to get into a discussion on that. As it seems like an emotive/subjective argument - rather than an objective/policy-based one. In terms of "motto translations", if we don't have a reliable/verifiable source for the translation - than we just should add one. Leave the Irish or Latin stand alone.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• None of the Coat of Arms I've ever uploaded to Commons/Wikipedia are generated in ChatGPT. Recently, I've used ChatGPT to assist me in generating some of the elements which I use in GIMP. So for example, the blazon for the Coat of Arms of Ardee very specifically calls for a rendering of the Castle at Ardee. I do graphic design rather illustration, and did not have access to a freely available graphic asset of Ardee Castle. I used ChatGPT to generate one, and then altered that asset. The rest of the Coat of Arms is created by myself or is a freely available asset from the Commons, edited in GIMP. There is no possibility of hallucinations because a human, myself, is manually controlling and editing every aspect of the finished product in GIMP, not ChatGPT. 90% of the process is done in GIMP. All of this is inline with Commons:AI-generated media and has been discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:County Limerick Coat of Arms.png and Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Navan_Coat_of_Arms.png as being fine, and has been commended as the correct way to incorporate AI.
• As I've said, Coats of Arms issued to Irish towns have de facto continued to be used by their successors. You mentioned Greystones; Well for example, Heraldry of the World literally has a photo of Greystones municipal district continuing to use the arms of Greystones urban district, while this page from Mayo County Council's official website shows Mayo County Council literally using the version of Castlebar's Coat of Arms used here on Wikipedia. I understand you're concerned about De Jure usage, but De Facto these arms are still being used.
• If you're proposing a blanket alteration to every Irish town infobox that uses a Coat of Arms issued by the Chief Herald of Ireland, again I think that's something I think you'd really need to discuss with WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, as I would presume a wider consensus would be needed for something affecting so many articles.
• What would altering the infobox look like? Adding a notetag to every infobox stating the Arms are tied to Councils abolished in 2014? I'm not against that per say, but again WikiProject Heraldry would probably have to support it.

CeltBrowne (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. RE:

• ChatGPT. OK. Grand.
• Greystones. If there's some evidence that Greystones continues to use those arms after 2014, then maybe that's OK (although, frankly, the heraldry-wiki.com entry appears to be a wiki entry which refers to an unspecified Facebook page/image. Which are hardly reliable/authoritative refs under our usual norms.)
• Skibbereen/etc. Whatever about there being some (questionable?) support for Greystones, what about Skibbereen? Or Sligo?
• "WikiProject Heraldry would probably have to support it"? Why would WikiProject Heraldry need to "support" the application of WP:VER or other norms? If there aren't available/reliable/verifiable references to establish (for example) that the arms, issued to Skibbereen Urban District Council in 1980, still apply to Skibbereen as a whole, why would I need to go WP:FORUMSHOPing for further input?
• "blanket alteration to every Irish town infobox". I'm not proposing a blanket anything. I'm only here chatting to you because you seemed to be making multiple ("blanket") changes to various Irish town infoboxes. And I was wondering if there was rationale/refs to support those changes. I wasn't expecting to be advised to "go ask Dad if you think there's an issue".

Anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Gulio, I'm not trying to get under your skin; I'm happy to build consensus with you, I know you're a diligent editor. If you want to be WP:Bold, you're entitled to do that. It's just that I know from being subscribed to WikiProject Elections and Referendums and WikiProject Professional wrestling that people will run changes to infoboxes by the relevant project as a courtesy. I've never seen a coat of arms in a Wikipedia infobox that has notes or statements attached to it, so that's why I was unsure about the idea and why I suggested discussing it with Project Heraldry.

If you want to put some kind of note into the infoboxes, you can do that. I'm not sure how it will work though, because unlike |image= and |image_skyline=, there is no caption option available for |shield= in infobox settlement. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey. Apologies if I came across as "bothered". I tend to communicate in clipped/matter-of-fact sentences. Which, without emojis or smiley-faces to convey tone, sometimes come across as brusque. You'd think I'd have learned by now.

I see now what you mean about the "shield=" infobox param. I hadn't copped that the "caption" for that was (unlike other similar infobox parms) fixed or "hard-coded". With no flexibility. So I can see why trying to add a qualifier would require input from elsewhere. I'll have a think about that before bothering others.

In terms of the core concern (that, absent evidence otherwise, I'm not sure the Skib or Sligo arms "survived" the 2014 Local Gov Reform Act), I'm gonna see if I can find sources. One-way-or-the-other. And either make a WP:BOLD call from there. Or raise a thread on the relevant talkpages.

In the meantime, TBH, I wonder if it would be prudent to avoid "bulk" adding many more of those COA images around the place. As, absent refs/qualification on their their ongoing use to represent the town as a whole, it may be that their prominent placement could be UNDUE. Or, worse, potentially misleading. Anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Curious

Just wondering why you took away the prod on Adam Brooks when the discussion you mentioned was six years ago and there hasn't been much in the way of article activity since. The tags that are there seem to be from the same time as well and haven't been challenged in all that time. I can't start an AfD. 2001:8003:5130:2601:11AC:91C5:44E0:EAC6 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frank Zeidler.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frank Zeidler.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taylor Lorenz. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Several of the sources you cited focus on opposition to Joe Biden's support for Israel in the Gaza war, which which falls within WP:CT/A-I. Please discuss your proposed contributions on the article talk page instead of edit waring. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)